regenerate_post_visual

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses side effects (refreshes stock photos, re-scores library assets), the default output shape ('slim option list with pickArgs'), and a conditional output field ('editInVisualEditor' when active brand is set). It omits details like persistence or permissions, but covers the core behavioral traits.

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 exactly two sentences with the main action front-loaded. Every clause adds value: what regeneration does, default return, parameter guidance, and a key output field. No filler or repetition of schema information.

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?

For a 4-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description gives a solid understanding of purpose, behavior, output defaults, and detail modes. It also flags the conditional nature of editInVisualEditor. It doesn't mention prerequisites like post existence, but the sibling tool names and general context make this acceptable.

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 schema covers all four parameters with detailed descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds nuance by explaining the default response and clarifying detail values ('short' = counts only, 'full' = raw catalog), which goes slightly beyond the schema. However, it adds nothing for platform or loadExternal beyond their existing schema 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 uses a specific verb ('Regenerate') with a clear resource ('visual option set for a post') and elaborates the action ('refreshes stock photo results and re-scores library assets'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like generate_post_visual_options, pick_post_visual, and clear_post_visual by focusing on re-running/updating an existing set.

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 implies use for refreshing existing visual options but does not explicitly contrast with generate_post_visual_options or state when to choose this tool over alternatives. It does provide parameter-level guidance ('detail='short' for counts only, 'full' for raw catalog'), but lacks tool-level when/when-not conditions.

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