create_poster_from_content

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

No annotations exist, yet the description carries the full behavioral load: template placeholder text is replaced, unfilled fields are removed along with their backing plate/button, the poster keeps its own size when inserted into a document, and the summary.moved/unplaced/shrunk fields report where text landed and how much it shrank. That is unusually rich disclosure of mutation and layout-fitting behavior.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and scoping rule, and every sentence conveys something actionable. The long parenthetical template enumeration and stacked clauses (deletion rule, field mapping, summary fields, documentId) make it dense and slightly run-on.

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?

For a tool with a nested 9-field content object, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers placement, deletion of unfilled slots, per-template field needs, and return summary semantics. It leaves open what happens on template/field mismatch or invalid templateId, a minor gap.

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 already 86%, and the description adds meaning beyond it by mapping template families to the fields they consume (菜单→details, 课程表→table, 数据盘点→chart, 证书→recipient) and by explaining the precedence among documentId, document, and documentPath. It defers per-field syntax to get_guide, which is acceptable but slightly indirect.

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 verb and artifact (generate a poster from content) plus a concrete constraint: it is a single-page template render where size follows the template, with the template categories enumerated (小红书封面, 菜单, 价目表, 证书, 课程表...). This clearly separates it from create_document_from_template and create_document_from_html.

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?

Gives real routing: templateId must come from list_templates with kind=poster, content field syntax is documented in get_guide("poster-content"), and documentId/document/documentPath/neither each select a different target document. It does not explicitly say when to prefer a sibling tool such as create_document_from_template instead.

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