build_webex_adaptive_card

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: no API calls (pure construction), returns dict with card_body and card_actions, or an error response on validation failure. It lacks details on authentication or side effects, but for a construction tool 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 well-structured: summary, return info, args list, returns, and example. It is informative without being verbose, though there is slight redundancy in stating the return type twice. Overall efficient and front-loaded.

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 no output schema and no enums in schema, the description provides a complete picture: parameter meanings, return format, error handling, and a full example. It even lists allowed values for style, acting as an enum. This is sufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description provides detailed explanations for all parameters, including types, optionality, and examples for complex ones like actions and facts. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Build an Adaptive Card from high-level inputs without hand-crafting the schema.' It distinguishes itself from siblings like send_webex_adaptive_card by specifying it returns card_body and card_actions ready to pass to that sending tool, indicating it is a construction-only tool.

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 explicitly says 'Makes no API calls — pure construction only' and that output is ready for send_webex_adaptive_card, telling agents when to use this (to build a card) and when to use alternatives (sending). It also provides examples showing integration with the sending tool.

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