tool_generate_poster

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It transparently describes side effects ('records the image_edit_page_url in DB', 'downloads 1K output') and specific UI interactions ('pastes input images and prompt onto the canvas', 'clicks Send'), going well beyond a simple 'generates a poster' phrase.

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 but is slightly cluttered by the 'Boss Function 2:' prefix, which is superfluous. The core information is front-loaded and each step contributes to understanding the tool's behavior, though the dense chain of actions could be broken down for readability.

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 value details are not required. The description covers the full workflow, side effects, and key parameters (via schema). It doesn't mention prerequisites like needing an existing project or setting up Google Flow, but given the optional parameters and self-contained description, it is reasonably complete.

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 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter (prompt, headless, image_paths, project_url). The description only loosely references 'input images and prompt', which adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 it 'Generates a poster in Google Flow' and enumerates a concrete sequence of actions (paste images and prompt, click Send, open edit page, record URL, download output). This specific workflow distinguishes it from sibling tools like tool_edit_poster and tool_poster_ratio_editor, which focus on different poster-related operations.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. It does not mention alternatives, exclusions, or conditions under which another tool would be more appropriate. The workflow implies poster generation, but no comparative context is given.

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