reuse_poster_template

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose that the source is never overwritten and that only content is replaced, but it omits what happens to fields like tags, status, render options, and whether a new poster ID is generated. The term 'replace only the content' is ambiguous regarding non-content fields (e.g., title, brief, layout).

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, no fluff. The first sentence states the action and its effect; the second emphasizes a critical safety guarantee. Every word earns its place, and the key constraint is front-loaded.

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?

Given the tool's high complexity (15 params, nested objects), 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema or annotations, the description is grossly incomplete. It fails to clarify the fate of metadata fields, what 'content' includes, or how the source poster is selected. For a tool this complex, far more detail is needed to ensure correct invocation.

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 0% and the description mentions zero parameter names. The tool has 15 parameters, including complex nested objects like 'brief' and 'content', yet the description provides no hints about how parameters like 'sourcePosterId', 'mood', or 'theme' should be used. This is completely inadequate for an agent to fill the schema correctly.

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 uses a specific verb ('copy') and resource ('existing poster's layout/style/theme into a new poster'), clearly distinguishing it from create/update/import poster siblings. It also states the key scope ('replace only the content') and a critical constraint ('Never overwrites the source poster'), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 ('Copy an existing poster's layout/style/theme...') but does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives like create_poster or update_poster. There is no mention of when-not-to-use or alternatives, though the phrasing 'reuse' suggests a template-copy scenario.

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