artwork_followup

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one useful trait, that undo history is preserved, but says nothing about whether a live session is required, what happens if the job_id is stale, or whether the underlying artwork is mutated.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is achieved largely by omitting necessary detail rather than by tight editing.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but for an unannotated mutation tool with two fully undocumented required parameters the description is too thin. Nothing tells the agent what a valid job_id looks like or how this interacts with the surrounding job/session tools.

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 0%, so both parameters (job_id, prompt) are undocumented anywhere. The description's phrases "existing session" and "art direction" only loosely gesture at them and add no format, source, or constraint information.

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 verb+resource ("apply a follow-up art direction to the existing session") is parseable, but "follow-up art direction" is vague and it never distinguishes itself from close siblings like artwork_make_it_cooler or artwork_job_create. An agent cannot confidently tell when this applies a new direction versus creating a fresh job.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing is given. With siblings such as artwork_job_create, artwork_make_it_cooler, and session_undo in the same family, the description leaves the agent to guess which one fits.

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