create_gallery_item

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden for a 15-parameter mutation tool. The defaults it cites (status=draft, visibility=public) and the kinds[0]-is-primary rule are already stated verbatim in the schema property descriptions, so the sentence adds no new disclosure. Nothing is said about permission requirements, duplicate-slug handling, side effects, or what is returned.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and the key array semantic, then the defaults, then the follow-up pointer. No filler, no restating of the tool name beyond the opening clause.

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 15-parameter creation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and less than half of the parameters documented in the schema, the description is underspecified: it omits most optional fields, error/duplicate behavior, and any mention of what a successful call produces. The one workflow pointer it offers does not close the gap.

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 description coverage is only 47%, so the description would need to compensate for the many undocumented optional fields (author, summary, subtitle, source_id, published_at, source_table, duration_minutes), and it does not. The two facts it does give — ordering of kinds and the status/visibility defaults — duplicate what the schema already says rather than adding meaning.

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 states a specific verb and resource ("Create a Gallery item") and clarifies the core payload semantic that kinds is an ordered array with kinds[0] as primary. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like update_gallery_item or delete_gallery_item, though the create verb makes the intent unambiguous.

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?

There is one concrete workflow hint — "Use set_gallery_featured afterwards to pin to the landing carousel" — which tells the agent what to do next for a common goal. However, it gives no guidance on when this tool is preferred over alternatives (e.g., update_gallery_item, create_content) or any prerequisites such as slug uniqueness or permissions.

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