graphic_presets

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description tells the agent it can "Add a text overlay with preset and override its style or motion," which is a write operation. With an empty parameter schema, such a mutation is not even possible, so the description contradicts the structured safety profile instead of supplementing it.

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 first sentence is tight and front-loaded, but the second sentence adds no usable information for this tool and in fact introduces a misleading action, so it does not earn its place. Overall it is short but not well-structured as guidance for a zero-argument list operation.

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 catalogue tool this could be complete, but the description never says what the presets contain (names, IDs, categories) or how an agent should then use a returned preset. Instead it describes an action the tool cannot perform, which is worse than saying nothing.

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 tool takes zero parameters and the schema is an empty object, so there is nothing to disambiguate; the description correctly avoids inventing parameters. Baseline 4 applies for a no-parameter tool.

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 first sentence states a clear verb and resource: "List reusable title, lower-third and callout styles." The second sentence, however, describes a different capability ("Add a text overlay with preset and override its style or motion") that an agent could easily read as this tool's job, muddying what the tool actually does and leaving the purpose partly ambiguous.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance relative to the many siblings (e.g. edit_apply, draft_apply) and no when-not-to-use exclusions. The second sentence gestures at a workflow but names no alternative tool for actually adding the overlay, so an agent gets no actionable routing information.

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