build_publishing_pack

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: the returned field set, and a non-obvious side effect of the prompt generation (brand names stripped 'so the banner cannot reproduce a real trademark'). It also clarifies that this tool only builds and that the file write occurs later via save_and_present. It does not state error behavior or what happens with missing/empty optional inputs.

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 core purpose and final-step positioning are front-loaded, and the output list plus the two parameter notes follow in short paragraphs. Slightly verbose with backstory ('so the banner cannot reproduce a real trademark'), but nothing is redundant.

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?

There is no output schema, so describing the returned fields is valuable and largely covers the return contract. However, for a tool with 8 parameters at 0% schema coverage, over half the inputs remain unexplained, which leaves the agent guessing what to pass for slug, entities, keywords, description, and canonical_url.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% across 8 parameters, so the description is the only source of meaning. It explains image_concepts (plain-word content, empty falls back to headline) and image_style (editorial/photographic/abstract), covering 2 of 8. slug, entities, keywords, description, and canonical_url are left entirely undocumented.

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 states a concrete verb+resource ('build ... publishing pack' / 'Final step. Everything needed to publish, in one block') and enumerates the exact artifacts it assembles: title, labels line, permalink slug, search description, alt text, and a Gemini image prompt. It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming save_and_present as the consumer, though it does not contrast against other SEO/image siblings.

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?

Usage is clearly positioned as the 'Final step' and the downstream action is explicit: 'Pass the result to save_and_present as `pack`'. It also states the fallback for image_concepts ('Leave it empty and the headline is used') and the acceptable image_style values. It gives no explicit when-not or prerequisites (e.g. whether a draft must exist first).

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