Clone a static ad

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

Annotations declare non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world behavior, and the description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: billing cost ('Bills as one image generation'), a side effect ('switches this key's active profile like use_brand'), and the guarantee that source branding is removed. It does not describe failure modes or output format, but the added billing and side-effect disclosure is strong.

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?

Core purpose is front-loaded in the first clause and alternatives follow. It is somewhat dense with capitalized emphasis and a long trailing billing sentence, but nearly every sentence carries distinct information (scope, parameter, alternative, billing).

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?

With no output schema, the description still conveys what is produced (on-brand static ad, source branding removed), the billing model, the profile side effect, and the sibling alternative. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: it clarifies imageUrl is the static ad image to clone and that brandId has the side effect of switching the active profile like use_brand — information not present in the parameter descriptions.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('STATIC-AD CLONE ... rebuild a competitor/reference STATIC (image) ad as an on-brand version') and explicitly distinguishes itself from clone_video. An agent can identify exactly what this produces (an on-brand static ad) and what it is not.

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 ('for a static image ad'), when-not ('IMAGES ONLY — for a video ad use clone_video with its link, then render_ad'), and how to target a specific brand profile. Alternatives are named with the condition that selects them.

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