add_graphics

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It only cryptically mentions a lock pattern ('lock='speech:<kw>'') without explaining behavior (e.g., mutability, side effects, permissions). Virtually no transparency.

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 a single cryptic sentence with an ellipsis. While concise, it sacrifices clarity and omits critical information, making it insufficiently informative.

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 tool with a required flexible array and an output schema, the description provides no return value info, no behavior details, and no parameter guidance. It is grossly incomplete for effective agent decision-making.

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 coverage is 0%, yet the description fails to explain the 'items' array structure or the 'brand' parameter beyond listing example graphics types. The lock pattern is not mapped to any parameter, leaving interpretation entirely to the agent.

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 mentions specific overlay types ('lower_third, title_card, stat_counter, charts') and a lock pattern, indicating the tool adds brand motion graphics. However, it does not explicitly state the action (e.g., 'adds graphics to a project') and lacks clear differentiation from sibling 'add_speech_infographics'.

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 examples imply usage for brand overlays, but there is no guidance on when not to use this tool versus alternatives like 'add_speech_infographics' or 'apply_recipe'. No exclusions or context are provided.

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