build_picture

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure and does well: it states the tool is read-only, returns a { command } object, and explains both show and erase behavior. It could add more about error handling or validation, but for a builder utility this is sufficient.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and uses a compact semicolon structure to convey show vs. erase behavior. No redundant words.

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 11 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key context: insertion via insert_event_commands, read-only nature, return shape, and mode differences. It relies on the schema for parameter details, which is appropriate, though it omits broader context like example usage or constraints beyond schema.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds a concise grouping of show-related parameters and clarifies that erase clears the slot, but it mostly restates per-parameter 'show:' hints already present in the schema.

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 that the tool builds Show Picture (231) or Erase Picture (235) event commands for insertion via insert_event_commands. It distinguishes from sibling build_* tools by specifying the exact command codes and listing the relevant parameters for show and erase.

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 usage context by stating the output is meant for insert_event_commands and that it is read-only. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or when not to use this tool, but the purpose is unambiguous enough to guide selection.

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