seeany_create_product_visual

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

The description adds meaningful behavior beyond the annotations: it waits for a stored job, downloads outputs, requires confirm_cost in live mode, and explains that reusing plan_id resumes the job rather than creating a new one. This is rich, non-obvious context that helps the agent predict side effects.

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?

Two dense, front-loaded sentences with no filler. Every clause adds operational value, and the most important usage constraint (confirm_cost) appears early.

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?

The description covers lifecycle, cost confirmation, and idempotency, which are the key operational concerns. It does not define 'live mode' or specify what the return value contains, but given the annotations and sibling tools, the definition is still sufficiently complete for correct invocation.

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?

The schema already covers output_dir and confirm_cost, but plan_id and timeout_seconds lack descriptions. The description does add plan_id reuse semantics and confirm_cost requirements, yet it does not explain timeout_seconds or how output_dir interacts with the plan's existing output directory. With 50% schema coverage, this is adequate but not fully compensating.

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 precise action: execute a previously quoted product-visual plan, wait for the stored job, and download outputs. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like seeany_plan_product_visual, which would create the plan rather than execute it.

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 phrase 'previously quoted product-visual plan' clearly implies this tool is used after quoting/planning, and the resume behavior adds important context. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls just short of a 5.

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