widget_title_template

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the critical behavioral trait—this tool only returns a spec and does not create an asset—and adds detail about named fade-in/fade-out animations. However, it omits details about defaults and output structure, so it is not a 5.

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?

Two concise sentences with an action verb upfront and no filler. Every word earns its place, making it efficient and well-structured.

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?

For an 18-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description is minimally adequate: it conveys the core function and side-effect boundary. However, it lacks detail about output structure, default behavior, and how the returned spec connects to widget-building sibling tools, leaving gaps for full invocation context.

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 61%, and the description adds no parameter-level detail. It only hints at 'title or lower-third' and 'fade-in/fade-out,' which loosely maps to style and fade parameters, but it does not compensate for the undocumented color and font size 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 clearly states it returns a UMG title or lower-third widget JSON spec with named fade animations, using a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('widget JSON spec'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from asset-creating siblings with 'Does not create an asset.'

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 phrase 'Does not create an asset' provides a clear exclusion and helps the agent decide when not to use this tool (asset creation). It does not explicitly name alternatives like widget_title_card_create, but the context is clear enough for selection among siblings.

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