Remix a static ad

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

While annotations are all false (no readOnly, etc.), the description adds several behavioral details: it bills as one image generation, it switches the active brand as a side effect, and it ensures source brand traces are removed. These are beyond typical expectations and would affect the agent's usage, such as side effects and cost. It does not explicitly state any destructive actions, but given the tool is generative and the side-effect of brand switching is disclosed, it earns a 4 rather than a 3.

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 a single paragraph that front-loads the core purpose ('One-click STATIC-AD REMIX') before elaborating on behavior, parameters, and alternatives. It is reasonably concise, though slightly verbose with repeated emphasis ('STATIC', 'IMAGES ONLY'), but every sentence delivers value—it explains the branding outcome, parameter usage, side effect, alternative, and billing. It's well-structured and wouldn't benefit much from trimming.

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 tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, how to pass the required image, optional brand selection, the side-effect of brand switching, the billing implication, and a clear alternative for video. It does not specify the exact return format, but given the absence of an output schema and the simplicity of the operation, this is not a significant gap. The tool appears complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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%—both `imageUrl` and `brandId` have descriptions in the schema—so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds meaningful extra semantics for `brandId`, explaining it switches the active brand like `use_brand`, which is not in the schema description. It also reinforces `imageUrl` as the input image. This goes beyond the schema, so a score of 4 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?

The description clearly identifies the tool's function: rebuilding a static image ad as an on-brand version while preserving layout and energy. It explicitly states it is for STATIC images and names the sibling tool `render_ad` for video ads, making it distinguish from related tools. The inclusion of 'SAME layout, composition and energy' plus brand customization specifics leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 clear guidance on when to use this tool: for static (image) ads only, and explicitly points to `render_ad` as the alternative for video ads. It also explains the optional `brandId` behavior, noting it switches the active brand like `use_brand`, which helps the agent understand the context in which to provide that parameter. This meets the criteria for explicit when/alternative guidance.

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