assemble_material

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and it does disclose a non-obvious behavior: sections that cannot be published are dropped and written to a warning. This is useful, but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether authentication or permissions are required, or any other side effects.

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 efficient sentence that leads with the purpose and adds a behavioral detail. There is no filler or repetition, though the extreme brevity leaves several important aspects underspecified.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but the tool has 3 parameters with zero schema descriptions, no annotations, and no usage or parameter guidance. For a tool with a required channel parameter and optional package and opportunity parameters, the description is too thin for an agent to confidently select and invoke 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 description coverage is 0% and the description does not mention channel, package, or opportunity at all. The agent receives no help understanding what these parameters mean or how they should be populated, so the description fails to compensate for the empty schema descriptions.

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 clearly states the verb and resource: extracting material for writing media-facing copy. It also adds a specific behavior, dropping non-publishable sections and recording them as warnings, which helps distinguish it from siblings such as get_positioning or check_consistency. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or contrast itself with sibling tools.

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 phrase '媒体向けの文面を書くための' implies the tool is for assembling material when preparing media-facing content. There is no explicit guidance about when not to use it, prerequisites, or which sibling tool to choose in other scenarios.

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