CPP Build All

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

Annotations already flag a destructive, non-idempotent, open-world write, but the description adds crucial workflow context beyond them: it is a live write requiring human approval, and a call may return an approval_required refusal that must be resolved out-of-band before retrying.

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?

Three tight lines: what it does, when to use it, what it returns. The write/approval caveat is front-loaded in the first sentence, and nothing is padded.

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 destructive multi-page write with a two-step approval handshake, the description covers the trigger condition, the human-approval requirement, the refusal path, and the returned shape. With an output schema present, no further return-value detail is required.

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 100% – bundle_id, themes and the approval_id retry flow are all documented in the schema itself. The description adds little parameter-level detail beyond restating the one-page-per-theme mapping, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Specific verb (Create one Custom Product Page per theme), precise scope (page, version, localization) and the concrete artifact produced (deep-link URLs). Clearly distinguishable from sibling build_all tools such as screenshot_build_all or growth_build_slideshows.

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?

Explicit when-to-use: 'after ASO produced theme clusters; the URLs feed Ad Ops', which pins it to a pipeline stage. It does not name when-not to use it or a direct alternative, so it falls short of a 5.

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