Corrects spelling issues and visually reports them, then verifies that social or lower-third copy fits layout limits before generating SVG.
Correct and visibly report spelling issues, then check whether the corrected social or lower-third copy fits SAMPLE layout limits before generating SVG.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cta | No | ||
| body | No | ||
| mode | No | final | |
| headline | Yes | ||
| template | No | policy_alert |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the agent knows it is a safe read operation. The description adds that it corrects spelling and checks layout, which is useful context, but it does not disclose any unexpected side effects. 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 that packs multiple steps, but it is somewhat clunky and could be split into clearer parts. It is not excessively long but not optimally structured for quick comprehension.
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 5 parameters with no schema descriptions and no output schema, the description is highly incomplete. It does not explain what inputs are needed, what output to expect, or how the tool fits into a workflow beyond the vague 'before generating SVG'. This is inadequate for an agent to call the tool 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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention any parameter names, types, or semantics. It refers to 'copy' and 'layout limits' but does not map to the five parameters (headline, body, cta, mode, template). The agent cannot infer parameter meaning from this description, which is a critical gap.
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 multi-step action: correct and report spelling, then check layout fit, then generate SVG. This clearly distinguishes it from validation tools like validate_svg_artifact or creation tools like create_social_svg, though the exact scope of 'SAMPLE layout limits' is somewhat ambiguous.
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 a temporal usage ('before generating SVG') but does not explicitly mention alternatives or conditions for when not to use this tool. It lacks guidance on when to prefer other tools like validate_design_spec or create_social_svg, leaving the agent to infer context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.