infographic_create

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the critical behavioral requirement of user confirmation ('Requires confirm=True after user approval'), which is essential for a potentially resource-intensive generation tool. However, it doesn't mention performance characteristics, rate limits, what format the infographic is returned in, or whether this is a synchronous/async operation.

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 well-structured with a purpose statement followed by parameter explanations. Every sentence adds value: the first establishes the tool's purpose and critical constraint, while the parameter explanations provide essential context missing from the schema. It could be slightly more front-loaded by moving the confirm requirement closer to the initial statement.

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's complexity (7 parameters, generation operation) with no annotations but an output schema, the description provides substantial context. It covers the user approval workflow, parameter meanings, and generation options. The existence of an output schema means return values don't need explanation. The main gap is lack of behavioral context about performance or resource usage.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for 7 parameters, the description provides excellent compensation. It explains all parameters with clear semantics: 'notebook_id: Notebook UUID', 'source_ids: Source IDs (default: all)', and provides enum values for orientation and detail_level. The confirm parameter gets crucial context about user approval. Only minor gaps exist in explaining BCP-47 language codes or focus_prompt usage.

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's purpose as 'Generate infographic' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'slide_deck_create' or 'report_create' by focusing on infographics specifically. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'data_table_create' or other visual content tools beyond the name.

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 provides clear context about when to use this tool: 'Requires confirm=True after user approval' establishes a prerequisite workflow. It implies this is for creating visual summaries from notebook content. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives among sibling tools for similar tasks.

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