Generate text

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

Annotations are all false, offering no behavioral hints, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the default copywriter system prompt, the raw:true escape hatch to bypass it, and that the tool is paid by length—valuable behavioral context not in the schema. It doesn't contradict annotations, though it omits error handling and response format.

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?

A single, information-dense paragraph where each sentence earns its place: purpose, scope, exclusions, default behavior, parameter tips, and cost. No redundancy or filler; the most critical scoping info is front-loaded before the parameter notes.

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 prompt-based generation tool, the description covers purpose, usage boundaries, default behavior, and cost. It omits an explicit return-type description and error cases, but these are well-implied for text generation, and the schema handles parameter documentation. The tool's complexity is low enough that this is nearly complete.

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% with detailed parameter descriptions for prompt, model, and raw. The description adds only minor reinforcement (e.g., 'Claude orchestrator' for model) but doesn't introduce new semantic meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 names the verb 'generate' and resource 'text' against a specific writing-model catalog, and enumerates concrete use cases (ad copy, hooks, scripts, rewrites, brainstorms). It explicitly distinguishes itself from ad-assembly tools (plan_ad → render_ad) and other generation siblings (image, voice, video), making its purpose unmistakable.

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 gives direct when-to-use (prompt-only text generation) and when-not-to-use (for a finished on-brand creative use plan_ad → render_ad) guidance. It also explains the raw:true option for non-marketing copy, providing clear selection criteria against alternatives.

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