Remix a static ad

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

Annotations are minimal (no readOnly, no destructive), so the description carries full burden. It discloses billing ('Bills as one image generation'), the brand switching behavior, and that the output has 'every trace of the source brand removed'. No contradictions with annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then provides details in a logical order. It is slightly wordy (e.g., 'One-click STATIC-AD REMIX' could be condensed) but every sentence contributes meaningful information. Nearly excellent.

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 tool has an output schema and only 2 parameters, the description fully covers input, process, output, billing, and brand behavior. It addresses the key concerns for an AI agent: what the tool does, when to use, what to provide, and what happens (generation, brand switching, removal of source traces).

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% and schema descriptions are present, but the description adds significant value: it explains imageUrl as a competitor/reference ad, and specifies that brandId switches the active brand like use_brand. This goes beyond the schema's 'brand id/name' description.

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 tool remixes a static ad image into an on-brand version, with specific verb 'remix' and resource 'static ad'. It distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly noting 'IMAGES ONLY — for video ads use render_ad', providing clear differentiation.

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 explicitly states when to use (static image ads) and when not to (video ads), naming the alternative tool 'render_ad'. It also explains the optional brandId parameter and its side effect of switching the active brand, giving clear usage guidance.

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