create_generation_prompt

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds useful context about spelling correction, visible reporting, and brand-locking, but it does not explain what 'visibly report' returns, how brand-locking is enforced, or what happens with edge cases. No contradiction with 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?

The description is a single sentence with no filler and front-loads the correction behavior. The term 'strict brand-locked' is somewhat jargon-heavy but does not bloat the definition.

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 no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the definition omits the return format, the meaning of outputType and includeNegativePrompt, and behavior when no spelling issues exist. An agent can call it with the required request, but cannot confidently tailor or interpret the result beyond the basic intent.

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 0%, so the description needed to carry parameter meaning. It only hints that request may contain spelling errors; it says nothing about outputType enum values or includeNegativePrompt, leaving the agent to infer or ignore those parameters.

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 states a specific action ('create') and a specific deliverable ('strict brand-locked prompt'), plus a distinct preprocessing behavior ('correct and visibly report spelling issues'). This distinguishes it from content-generation siblings like create_social_svg and create_quote_post, though 'another LLM or image/design model' is broad.

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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as validate_design_spec or create_one_pager. The process language implies that it is for generating prompts from corrected requests, but it does not state conditions, exclusions, or alternative selection criteria.

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