add_speech_infographics

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. 'Burn' implies a destructive or permanent action, but there is no clarification on reversibility, whether prior transcript is required, or how existing infographics are handled. The timing constraint is noted, but overall behavioral disclosure is insufficient.

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 sentence front-loads the core action and key constraint. It is efficient with no fluff, though it could benefit from a structured layout (e.g., separate parameter details). The minimalism earns a high mark for conciseness.

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 2 parameters and no annotations, the description omits essential context: whether transcripts must pre-exist, what 'auto' topic means, expected output shape (despite output schema existence), and integration with other workflow steps. The description covers only the basic intent, leaving significant gaps.

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%, yet the description fails to explain the parameters. 'topic' (with default 'auto') and 'project_id' are not defined. The description's mention of 'keyword/number' cards gives no insight into how the topic parameter influences behavior. Without adding meaning, the description does not compensate for the bare schema.

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 the verb 'burn' indicating a rendering operation, specifies the resource as 'keyword/number infographic cards', and adds the constraint 'locked to transcript timing'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling 'add_graphics' which likely adds generic graphics. The purpose is specific and actionable.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'add_graphics'. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., existing transcript) or scenarios where this tool is preferred. The agent receives no context for selection.

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