Preview Product Spot

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

Despite readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true covering the safety profile, the description adds meaningful behavior: the eventual apply only targets explicit empty tracks, item IDs are revalidated, and the tool reports host readback without claiming visual delivery verification. This goes well beyond the annotations.

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 sentences front-load the action and resource, and the second sentence packs consequential constraints and caveats without fluff. Every clause earns its place.

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?

With an output schema present and annotations already establishing read-only/idempotent behavior, the description doesn't need to explain returns or side effects. It covers the core purpose, constraints, and an important caveat, though explicit sibling differentiation would make it fully 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?

All 8 parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage), so the description doesn't need to compensate. It adds no new per-parameter semantics beyond the schema's already-detailed field descriptions.

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?

States a specific action ('Preview') and resource ('product-spot assembly') assembled from existing project items, and the read-only intent is clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from similarly named siblings such as preview_brand_spot or preview_motion_graphics_demo.

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 this is the preview step before an eventual apply and notes that apply is limited to explicit empty tracks, but it never states when to choose this tool over alternatives or lists exclusions. Guidance is contextual rather than explicit.

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