generate_creative_brief

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does add useful behavioral context: generation is done by a 'server model,' the output is 'receipt-bound,' and it makes no performance predictions. However, it does not disclose side effects such as persistence, costs, permissions, reversibility, or rate limits, leaving significant ambiguity for a tool with no annotation safety profile.

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 compact and efficient, packing deprecation guidance, purpose, output shape, a prerequisite, and a limitation into a single, well-structured sentence. There is no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is largely complete: it provides the scope, the output shape, the critical deprecation warning, and a key limitation. It loses one point because jargon like 'receipt-bound' is unexplained and the side-effect profile remains ambiguous, but overall it gives enough context for an agent to decide against using it.

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?

The schema already documents 'slate_item_id' with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by specifying the parameter must reference an 'approved slate item,' a meaningful eligibility constraint not present in the schema. It does not add formatting or syntax detail, but for a single-parameter tool this is adequate.

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 clearly states what the tool does: 'Compose eonik's grounded creative brief for an approved slate item via a server model' and enumerates the exact output structure. It also differentiates itself from the sibling 'get_brief_grounding' by explicitly deprecating itself in favor of that alternative.

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 deprecation notice 'prefer get_brief_grounding + author it yourself' provides explicit guidance on when not to use this tool and names the preferred alternative. The 'approved slate item' constraint and the limitation 'No performance predictions' further clarify the tool's scope of use.

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