visual_design_task

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses that the tool rejects direct calls without a skill grant and that results may be queued/running, instructing the agent to return the task id. This adds meaningful behavioral context about prerequisites and asynchronous behavior, though it doesn't describe the full success path or 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?

The description is three sentences, each earning its place: the first states the core purpose, the second gives a prerequisite, and the third provides handling instructions. It is concise, front-loaded, and free of fluff.

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 tool has 6 parameters, no output schema, and moderate complexity. The description covers the prerequisite and async handling, but it omits what the tool returns on success and does not explain the undocumented parameters. It is adequate but has notable gaps.

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 50%, with descriptions for prompt, assetId, and model_option_id, but file_name, aspect_ratio, and selectedAssetIds lack descriptions. The tool description does not mention or explain any parameters, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented ones. It adds no value beyond the schema for the parameters it does cover.

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 generates a project image asset via the UGCmind Tool Runtime, which is a specific verb+resource. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling generate_image, but the mention of run_skill and task handling implies a workflow-based purpose, providing sufficient clarity.

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 explicit usage context: call run_skill first, and it warns that direct calls are rejected without the active skill grant/run descriptor. It also instructs not to resubmit if the result is queued/running and to return the task id instead. This is clear context, though it doesn't discuss alternatives or when to prefer this tool over generate_image.

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