pick_post_visual

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains pickArgs requirements and mentions the editInVisualEditor result field, but it does not disclose whether this is a mutating action that overwrites an existing visual, what permissions or brand context are required beyond 'active brand is set', or error behavior. This is a partial but not complete behavioral picture.

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?

Three sentences, all information-dense and front-loaded: the first states the core purpose, the second details exact usage mechanics, and the third notes a useful return field. Every sentence earns its place with zero 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?

The description covers the essential input semantics and one return field, but since there is no output schema and no annotations, it could go further by stating the full response shape or whether the call replaces/updates the existing post visual. It is close to complete for correct invocation, though not fully comprehensive.

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?

Even though schema coverage is 100%, the description adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema descriptions: variant is a 1-based index, kind is required for card/quote templates, and parameters must come directly from generate_post_visual_options pickArgs. This is exactly the kind of semantic clarification agents need.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Select a visual for a post on a given platform.' It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like regenerate_post_visual and clear_post_visual by referencing pickArgs from generate_post_visual_options and mentioning the editInVisualEditor URL field.

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 usage rules: use pickArgs VERBATIM, pass kind+style+variant together for card/quote templates, pass assetId or slot for library/smart/stock assets, and do not invent style names. This gives clear when/how guidance and implicitly distinguishes from alternative visual tools.

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