compose_creative

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

Annotations declare a destructive, non-read-only write, and the description meaningfully adds to that: overwriting an existing destination requires expectedRevision, and reuseFrom inherits template/components/brand settings while design overrides top-level fields. It still does not say what is destroyed or how the existing file is affected when expectedRevision is omitted.

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?

Front-loads the artifact list, then prerequisites, then the two optional behaviors, in four dense but waste-free sentences. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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 6-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema and an opaque nested design object, the description covers the core contract but leaves preview/includeSource and the actual overwrite consequence unexplained. Adequate, not 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 only 17%, so the description must compensate and partially does: design, reuseFrom, and expectedRevision are all explained with semantics the schema lacks (design is an opaque additionalProperties object otherwise). But preview and includeSource get no explanation anywhere, leaving two number-or-object parameters undocumented.

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?

Opens with a specific verb ('Create') and enumerates the concrete creative artifacts it produces (mindmap, gantt, timeline, journey, kanban, sketch, storyboard, wireframe). This clearly separates it from siblings like compose_drawing, compose_technical, and compose_diagram without needing to open any schema.

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?

Gives a concrete prerequisite ('Read drawfather://schema/creative and drawfather://creative') and states the condition for expectedRevision (existing destination). It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with compose_technical or compose_drawing, so the agent must infer which sibling to pick.

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