Make Asset

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and delivers the two highest-value traits: output is text-based SVG, and long text does not wrap automatically (a real failure mode for callers). It omits file-write behavior such as overwrite semantics and what is returned after generation, leaving a gap for a tool that writes to disk.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and the enumerated asset types, then the two caveats. Nothing superfluous.

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 9-parameter generation tool with full schema coverage but no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the main pitfalls (no auto-wrap, not AI-generated) and pins the primary format. The missing piece is what the tool returns or writes (path, filename confirmation), which the agent would have to discover empirically.

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 nine parameters are already documented by the schema. The description adds only one parameter-adjacent fact — the 1200×630 OG card dimension, which informs width/height defaults — which is a marginal gain over 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a text-based SVG template') and enumerates the exact asset types matching the kind enum: og-card, banner, badge, placeholder. An agent can distinguish this from image-fetching siblings like find_images or download_asset without opening the schema.

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?

'Not an AI image generator' explicitly rules out the closest wrong-tool assumption, orienting the agent away from image search/generation siblings. However, no positive when-to-use context or named alternatives (e.g., draw_icon, find_images) are given, so it lacks full routing guidance.

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