asset_generate_app_icon

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description discloses that in non-api modes only the master mark is produced and requires calling `asset_ingest_external` for fan-out. It also explains the effect of `ios_18_appearances`. The `openWorldHint` annotation is not contradicted. However, it does not mention any other side effects or error conditions.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single paragraph that covers the essential workflow in a compact manner. It could be split into bullet points or sections for readability, but the information density is appropriate.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers the main workflow and references the sibling `asset_ingest_external` tool. However, it lacks explanation for `brand_bundle` and `output_dir` parameters. Given 6 parameters and no output schema, more detail would improve completeness.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With only 17% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining `mode`, `platforms`, and `ios_18_appearances` beyond the schema. However, it does not explain `brand_bundle` or `output_dir`, leaving gaps. The `brief` parameter is implied but not described.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool generates app icons for multiple platforms (iOS, Android, PWA, visionOS) and specifies three modes. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like `asset_generate_favicon` and `asset_generate_hero` by detailing platform-specific outputs and the need for post-processing via `asset_ingest_external` in non-api modes.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explains when to use each of the three modes and the post-processing step for non-api modes. It also mentions the `ios_18_appearances` feature. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it to alternatives like `asset_generate_logo`, slightly reducing clarity.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.