create_cardnews_from_text

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

With no annotations, the description provides some behavioral info: output format (HTML+PNG), dimensions (1080x1620), and internal structure (6 sections, 5 pills). However, it omits details on idempotency, side effects, authentication needs, or error states. Partially adequate but incomplete.

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 very short (one sentence plus a fragment), making it concise. However, the fragment '섹션 6개·요약바 pill 5개' is somewhat cryptic and could be structured more clearly. Still efficient.

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?

Given no output schema, 6 parameters including a nested object, and multiple formats, the description is too sparse. It does not explain how format affects processing, what metadata influences, or defaults for optional parameters. Leaves significant gaps for the agent.

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 100%, so each parameter has a description. The tool description adds minimal value beyond the schema (e.g., output structure). No assistance with parameter values like format or metadata role.

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 creates a 1080x1620 infographic card news (HTML+PNG) from a subtitle/text string, specifying the output format and structure (6 sections, 5 summary pills). It distinguishes from siblings implicitly by focusing on single text input, but could explicitly mention batch/file alternatives.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools (create_cardnews_batch, create_cardnews_from_file). The description does not indicate prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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