widget_title_card_create

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose side effects. It only says it 'creates' a widget blueprint, but does not mention whether it overwrites existing assets, requires specific paths, or returns any output. This is inadequate for a creation tool.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose. It is efficient, though it could include a bit more detail without losing conciseness.

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?

With 16 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far too sparse. It does not explain return values, potential side effects, or how it differs from similar title-related sibling tools.

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 coverage is only 50%, and the description does not compensate. It vaguely references 'styled text, background treatment, and FadeIn/FadeOut animation specs', but does not map these to the 16 parameters or explain important ones like font sizes or colors.

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') and a specific resource ('centered cinematic title-card Widget Blueprint'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like widget_lower_third_create. It also names key features: styled text, background treatment, and fade animation specs.

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 implies use for cinematic title cards by mentioning 'centered cinematic' and 'title-card', which distinguishes it from lower-third or other widget tools. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives.

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