creative_studio_edit_visual

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses important behaviors: no text is rendered, output file naming convention, validation, and return values (path, SHA-256, provider). This goes beyond minimal expectations, though it could add details about permissions or error cases.

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 purpose and pack in essentia output details without fluff. Every phrase earns its place, from 'art-direction loop' to the file naming pattern and return values.

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 is complete for a tool with 3 params and no output schema: it explains purpose, input semantics, output behavior, and return values. Missing minor aspects like error handling or prerequistites, but overall sufficient for an agent to use it correctly.

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 covers all three parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that the instruction describes imagery change ONLY and no text is rendered, which is not fully captured in the schema's 'What to change about the imagery'.

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?

Clearly states the tool refines an existing key visual via an image provider's edit path, with a specific verb ('Refine') and resource. It distinguishes from sibling 'creative_studio_generate_visual' by emphasizing editing an existing visual and mentions the art-direction loop.

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?

Provides clear context: use for fixing weak visuals in an art-direction loop, implying it's for editing after generation. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools (like generate) or state when not to use it, so it falls short of full guidance.

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