Placid MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool generates an image, implying a write operation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, output format (e.g., image URL or binary data), error handling, or whether it's idempotent. This is a significant gap for a tool that likely involves external processing.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Generate an image') and avoids redundancy, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

Given the complexity (2 parameters with nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address the output (what is returned, e.g., an image URL or file), error conditions, or behavioral traits like side effects. For a tool that generates content, this lack of context could lead to incorrect usage by an agent.

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 description mentions 'template and provided assets', which loosely maps to the two parameters (template_id and layers), but adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema. With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents parameters thoroughly (e.g., template_id as a UUID, layers as key-value pairs for dynamic content). The description doesn't explain the purpose of layers or provide examples, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 the action ('Generate an image') and the mechanism ('using a template and provided assets'), which distinguishes it from the sibling 'placid_generate_video' that presumably generates videos. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'placid_list_templates' beyond the verb 'generate' vs 'list', which is somewhat implied but not stated.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a template ID from 'placid_list_templates'), when not to use it, or how it differs from 'placid_generate_video' beyond the output type. This leaves the agent to infer usage from context alone.

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