set_carousel

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description adds the crucial write semantics that 'Slides replace the old ones', telling the agent this overwrites prior carousel content rather than appending. It also implies the session must already contain the referenced media (stills/, storyboard/, thumbnails/, takes). Slight tension with destructiveHint=false on the overwrite wording, but replacement of a generated artifact is not a genuine contradiction.

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 core action and the write-target are front-loaded, but the middle devolves into a long, dense recipe list ('a cover photo, one big word, frames with tags, before and after, a photo with notes, a magazine page...') that drifts from tool usage into editorial direction and could be trimmed without losing callable information.

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 nested slide objects and eleven layouts and no output schema, the description supplies the missing composition semantics and the pipeline relationship to set_post and video. It does not say what the call returns or whether rendering/publishing is a separate step, which is the main remaining 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description earns more by explaining the intent behind layouts and the '*stars* accent colour' convention in prose, plus concrete composition recipes ('a cover, frames of the storyboard sketches, then a compare per shot') that map directly onto layout/items/start/end choices.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and artifact: 'Write the session's slides (posts/carousel.json)'. It immediately scopes the resource to carousels and explicitly demarcates the boundary with set_post ('The post text stays in set_post'), so an agent can distinguish it from siblings without opening the schema.

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?

Explains the intended context: the slides can appear on LinkedIn as a PDF document or as a vertical photo post, in place of the video, and names set_post as the sibling that owns body text. It stops short of stating explicit when-not-to-use conditions (e.g. when to skip the carousel and keep the video).

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