Render word cloud

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

With annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true) the bar is lower. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it waits for completion and returns a URL plus optional image content. It does not detail potential side effects or time costs, but the wait behavior is clearly disclosed.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the main action ('Create a ShapeWords word cloud') and then states the completion behavior and return value. Every phrase is meaningful and there is no redundancy.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description appropriately explains the return value (artifact URL and optional image content). It also conveys the synchronous wait behavior, which is essential for a 28-parameter tool. Some additional context about fallback engines or error cases would be nice, but the provided information is adequate given the rich parameter schema.

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 79%, near the baseline threshold. The description itself does not explain any parameters; it only mentions returning an artifact URL and optional image content, which is partially tied to returnImage. The schema already documents the parameters well, so the description adds minimal parameter-specific value.

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 uses a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('ShapeWords word cloud'), then explains the synchronous behavior ('wait for completion') and output ('return the artifact URL plus optional image content'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like create_word_cloud_job (async) and get_word_cloud_job (retrieval).

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 implies synchronous usage by saying 'wait for completion', which contrasts with the sibling job-based tools. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this instead of create_word_cloud_job/get_word_cloud_job, nor does it name alternatives. Clear context but no exclusions.

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