Content asset brief

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and nothing in the description contradicts that — it frames the tool as generating a brief, not mutating state. The description goes well beyond annotations by disclosing the actual deliverable contents: specs, hook formulas, per-tool image prompt sizes, beat sheet, and a compliance checklist. It could still say whether the brief is returned inline only or persisted.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb and scope first, followed by the output enumeration. The list is long but each item conveys distinct deliverable value rather than repeating the schema, so it earns most of its length; a bulleted or clause-split structure would read slightly better.

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, the description carries the burden of explaining what comes back, and it does that thoroughly. The 3 required parameters are self-evident from the schema; the gap is guidance on which of the 11 optional parameters actually change the brief's content, which the description leaves unstated.

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 43%, below the 50% threshold, so the description is expected to compensate for the 14 parameters. It only indirectly maps to inputs — compliance checklist implies sponsored/giveaway/aiGenerated, per-tool sizing implies platform/format, beat sheet implies videoSeconds — but it never states these explicitly, leaving tone, offer, phase, eventId, product and niche unexplained outside the schema.

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?

Specific verb ('Create a production brief') plus a precisely scoped resource ('for one post, image, carousel, story, video or email'), with an enumeration of what the brief contains. It is clear what the tool produces, but it never names or contrasts sibling tools such as content_plan or platform_specs, so differentiation is left to inference.

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 'for one post, image, carousel, story, video or email' implicitly scopes this to a single asset, which hints at a plan-vs-asset split with content_plan. However, there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite statement, and no alternatives are named.

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