document_intelligence_create_sales_collateral

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

The description adds useful routing/scoping context beyond the annotations: 'Routes through the platform's domain-agent dispatcher under your JWT, tenant, and company scope.' It does not clarify the side effects or potential destructive behavior implied by destructiveHint=true, but the annotations already carry that safety signal. There is no contradiction between the description and the annotations.

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 short, front-loaded with the operation, and uses a compact Args list with no fluff. Every sentence contributes a distinct piece of information: the action being run, the routing scope, and the two parameters.

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?

Despite having an output schema and annotations, the description lacks domain-level guidance: what sales collateral actually is, how to formulate the message or structured inputs, and which sibling creation tools it should be preferred over. It is adequate for a generic dispatcher wrapper but not sufficient for an agent to confidently select and correctly invoke this tool among many similar document-intelligence creation 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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the Args block is the only source of parameter meaning; it correctly identifies message as a free-text objective and inputs as an optional JSON string of structured inputs. That is minimal but genuinely useful. It does not specify what keys or values inputs should contain, nor when message alone is sufficient, so it only partially compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 clear verb ('Run') and names the target resource ('create_sales_collateral' domain agent action), but it never explains what creating sales collateral actually involves or what kind of artifact is produced. It also does not distinguish this tool from closely related siblings like document_intelligence_create_marketing_collateral or document_intelligence_create_marketing_document, so an agent must rely mostly on the tool name.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no alternative tool is named. The only contextual clue is that the action routes through the platform's domain-agent dispatcher under the caller's JWT, tenant, and company scope, which describes routing rather than selection criteria. An agent cannot tell when this tool should be preferred over the many other document_intelligence creation tools.

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