Create Visual Brief

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that it does not call external services, which is consistent but does not elaborate on internal behavior (e.g., whether it saves state). Given annotation coverage, this is adequate but not exceptional.

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 with no redundancy. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second clarifies boundaries. Every word contributes value.

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 moderate complexity (4 params, no output schema, no nested objects), the description covers purpose and scope adequately. It lacks details about the format of the generated brief or what the tool returns, but with good schema and annotations, this is a minor gap. Slightly better than the bare minimum.

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 100% with clear descriptions for all four parameters. The description does not add any parameter-specific guidance beyond the implicit reference to 'raw idea' in the prompt. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter semantics.

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 ('turn') and resource ('raw idea' into 'production brief'), and explicitly distinguishes from siblings by stating 'This does not create a project or call external services.' This clearly differentiates it from create_project and other generation tools.

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 indicates when to use (to generate a production brief) and what it does not do (create a project or call external services), providing implicit guidance against using it for full project creation. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use.

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