create_generation_job

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true, so the agent knows it's a write operation. The description adds context about the return payload (brand-aware provider payload) and conditional submission behavior (if execute=true and runner configured), which goes beyond annotations.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence adds value. No redundant or extraneous text.

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 15 parameters (2 required) and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose, return payload, and conditional execution. It provides sufficient context for an agent to understand the tool's role, though it could benefit from clarifying how it differs from other creative tools.

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 all 15 parameters are already well-described in the schema. The tool description mentions media types and media_type parameter but adds no new semantic information beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool creates a Raven creative generation job for specific media types (image, video, 3D, audio, campaign, analysis) and mentions returning a brand-aware provider payload and conditional submission. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_generation_jobs or get_generation_job.

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 usage for creative generation but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like plan_creative_campaign or score_creative. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided.

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