Create Gallery

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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose real behavior: file formats, 20 MB cap, 1–20 item range, direct upload to the creator's own storage zone, and that one image serves as the cover. However, nothing is said about permissions/auth, whether the local files are moved or copied, reversibility of the listing, or failure modes - all material for a mutation with zero annotation coverage.

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 tightly packed sentences that front-load the core action and constraints with no filler. Minor deduction because the trailing clause about the cover being 'blurred or not on the landing page' is vague and reads as an afterthought rather than actionable 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 an 8-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers media constraints and storage destination but omits prerequisites, side effects, and what the caller gets back. It is adequate but leaves the agent guessing about the operational consequences of creating a listing.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the images constraint (1–20 pictures, accepted formats, 20 MB) and hints at coverIndex behavior via the cover sentence, but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already documents.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Sell a gallery of 1–20 pictures') plus format and size constraints, which cleanly separates it from siblings like create_video, create_series and create_link. It also names where the content lands (the creator's own Bunny Storage zone), so the agent knows this is a media-hosting sale listing, not a generic link 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 picture-only framing implies when to use it (selling image galleries rather than videos or series), but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusions, and no routing advice toward sibling creation tools. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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