infographic_create

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the approval requirement ('Requires confirm=True after user approval'), which is valuable behavioral context. However, it doesn't disclose other important traits like whether this is a read-only or mutation operation, what permissions are needed, rate limits, or what happens when the tool executes (e.g., does it create a file, modify the notebook, etc.).

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 reasonably concise with two sentences and a parameter list. However, the structure could be improved - the critical 'Requires confirm=True after user approval' is front-loaded appropriately, but the parameter documentation repeats information already implied. The description could be more efficiently structured without sacrificing 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?

Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, mutation operation implied by 'Generate'), no annotations, but with an output schema present, the description is moderately complete. It covers the approval requirement and parameter semantics well, but lacks information about what the tool actually does behaviorally (creates/modifies what resource, where it's stored, what permissions are needed). The output schema existence means return values don't need explanation, but other behavioral aspects are missing.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for 7 parameters, the description must compensate. It provides meaningful context for all parameters: notebook_id is described as 'Notebook UUID', source_ids as 'Source IDs (default: all)', orientation with enum values, detail_level with enum values, language with BCP-47 examples, focus_prompt as 'Optional focus text', and confirm with the critical 'Must be True after user approval'. This adds substantial semantic value beyond the bare 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose as 'Generate infographic' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'slide_deck_create' or 'report_create' by focusing specifically on infographics. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other content generation tools like 'video_overview_create' or 'audio_overview_create' beyond the output type.

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 explicit usage guidance with 'Requires confirm=True after user approval' and reiterates this in the parameter documentation. This clearly indicates when to use this tool (after user approval) and establishes a prerequisite condition. No alternatives are mentioned, but the approval requirement is a critical usage constraint.

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