Upload or Generate Asset

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

Annotations only signal that this is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive. The description goes far beyond that by disclosing prices, native template rendering, the drop-zone fallback ('bytes never pass through the agent'), and the recreate fallback behavior with free refusals.

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 dense but extremely well-structured: a one-sentence summary followed by purpose bullets, each containing only unique facts (ID returned, cost, size limit, fallback behavior). There is no fluff or repeated information.

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?

All eight purposes are explained with their required parameters, return IDs, costs, and edge-case handling. With no output schema, the description still prepares the agent for what each call yields (logo_id, asset_id, theme_id, deck job_id), making it complete enough to invoke correctly.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds critical meaning not in the schema: size limits (logo 5MB, image 10MB), per-purpose costs, the effect of omitting data for pdf/translate/theme, and the brand/theme alias. This is exactly the kind of parameter context an agent needs.

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 opening sentence states a specific verb ('Upload assets... or AI-generate an image') and resource ('assets for PowerPoint (.pptx) generation'), then breaks down eight distinct purposes. This makes it unmistakable that this tool is the asset-ingestion/generation entry point, and none of the sibling tools handle this scope.

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 bullet list acts as a decision table: each purpose explains when to use it, what it returns, and any special requirements (e.g., target_language for translate). It also gives direct routing advice like 'Use image to just place a picture' for recreate, and recommends omitting data for files >3MB to trigger a drop-zone.

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