tool_edit_poster

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose safety and side-effect details, but it only lists procedural steps (submit prompt, capture URL, download). It does not mention whether the operation is destructive, whether the DB is updated, or required permissions—critical gaps for a mutation tool.

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 run-on sentence that starts with the redundant 'Boss Function 3:' label. While the rest is packed with process steps, the unnecessary prefix and lack of sentence breaks reduce clarity.

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?

The tool appears to be a multi-step browser automation with headless support, but the description doesn't explain prerequisites (e.g., having an existing poster in DB) or what happens if image_edit_page_url is missing. The output schema exists so return values are handled, but the workflow could use more context on state changes.

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?

The input schema already provides descriptions for all three parameters (headless, edit_prompt, image_edit_page_url) at 100% coverage. The description references edit_prompt and image_edit_page_url but adds no syntax or format details beyond the schema, earning the baseline 3.

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 explicitly states the tool 'Edits/refines an existing poster image' and details the workflow, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like generate_poster which creates new posters. The verb 'Edits/refines' precisely identifies the operation on an existing resource.

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 the tool is for refining existing posters, with 'using the image_edit_page_url stored in DB' indicating a prerequisite, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. alternatives like generate_poster or ratio_editor. It provides context but no explicit exclusions or alternative suggestions.

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