createMultiImagePost

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

Goes well beyond annotations by disclosing critical behaviors: 'Writes live data,' 'HTTP 200 does NOT mean every photo imported,' duplicate group_name causes URL collisions, and auto_image_import fetches externals into site storage. It also describes post-create verification steps, silent-failure rows, and the instruction 'Do NOT delete and recreate the album.' No contradiction with annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false).

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 long but well-structured with bold section headers (Use when, Required, Pre-check, Parameter interactions, Post-create verification, etc.) and a clear data_type mapping table. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and use-when guidance; while lengthy, the detail is necessary for a complex creation tool with many failure modes.

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?

Covers return format ('{ status: "success", message: {...createdRecord} }'), post-create verification via listMultiImagePostPhotos, the consequence of choosing the wrong endpoint, and the lack of post_category for multi-image posts. Despite no output schema, the description fully prepares the agent for the create flow, verification, and failure recovery.

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?

Adds substantial meaning beyond the schema: group_name uniqueness and collision risk, post_image must be landscape and end in .jpg/.jpeg/.png with no query strings, data_type must be 4 and read from listPostTypes/getPostType, auto_image_import=1 needed for external URLs, and group_status meanings including 3=Pending Approval. These details are essential for correct parameter usage.

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 'Create an album group - Create a new portfoliogroup record. Writes live data,' giving a specific verb and resource. It further distinguishes from siblings by explicitly stating 'data_type=4 belongs here; 9/20 belongs in createSingleImagePost,' and explains the tool's role for multi-image post types like albums and galleries.

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?

Provides explicit 'Use when:' conditions (photo album, gallery, product listing, or any post type with data_type=4), and names alternatives: 'createSingleImagePost' for data_type 9/20, and 'createMultiImagePostPhoto' for already-hosted URLs only. It also gives a full data_type-to-endpoint mapping table and warns against using the wrong endpoint.

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