generate_post_visual_options

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 default response shape ('slim option list with pickArgs'), the behavior of each detail level, and the conditional inclusion of 'editInVisualEditor' when an active brand is set. This is substantial behavioral transparency, though it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only.

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 six sentences, each adding distinct information (purpose, return types, related tool, default behavior, detail variations, conditional field). It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and remains compact without redundant filler.

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 lack of an output schema, the description does a good job enumerating key output elements (bestPick, categorized options, pickArgs, editInVisualEditor) and the effect of the detail parameter. It could be more explicit about the overall response structure or error handling, but it covers the tool's main behavior sufficiently.

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 covers 100% of parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics for the 'detail' parameter by explaining the default ('medium') returns a slim list with pickArgs, 'short' for counts only, and 'full' for raw catalog. No additional explanation is needed for 'postId', 'category', or 'platform'.

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 'Fetch available visual options for a post' and enumerates content types (card templates, library matches, stock photos), distinguishing it from sibling tools like pick_post_visual by noting that one must be used to apply an option. It is specific about the verb and resource, and the scope per platform clarifies the function.

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 explicit guidance to 'Use pick_post_visual to apply one of the returned options', which clarifies the follow-up action. It also gives parameter-specific advice for 'detail' values. However, it does not mention any cases where another tool (e.g., search_stock_images) would be preferred, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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