widget_lower_third_create

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the creation intent but does not disclose whether existing assets are overwritten, required permissions, or any side effects. The verb 'Create' implies a write operation, but the lack of detail about what happens to an existing asset with the same name is a significant gap.

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, front-loaded sentence that clearly states the core purpose without any redundant wording. Every word earns its place, and it is appropriately concise for a creation tool.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (16 parameters, nested color objects, no output schema, no annotations), the description is far too thin. It does not mention asset naming/overwrite behavior, package path semantics, or return values. The many font size and color parameters are left entirely unexplained, and the absence of an output schema means the description should have provided at least a hint about what the tool returns.

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 50%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented parameters. It adds context for title, subtitle, and fade durations, which maps to several properties, but does not clarify the many color, font size, package_path, and asset_name parameters that lack schema descriptions. This partial compensation is insufficient for the number of opaque parameters.

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 uses a specific verb 'Create' with a specific resource 'broadcast-style lower-third Widget Blueprint', and further details the styled title/subtitle text and FadeIn/FadeOut animation specs. This clearly distinguishes it from generic widget creation tools and even from titles-related siblings like widget_title_card_create.

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 provides clear context that this tool is for creating a lower-third widget, which is helpful. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives such as widget_build_from_json or title_widget_build_from_manifest, nor does it mention any exclusions.

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