Open in the browser

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

readOnlyHint=true is consistent with returning a link, and the description adds what the link is preconfigured with, which is genuine value beyond the annotation. It does not disclose whether the link is shareable, expiring, or auth-bound, nor whether the tool launches a browser itself versus returning a URL for the agent to present.

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 what the tool yields before the usage condition. Slightly dense in the middle clause, but every sentence carries content and none is redundant with the title or schema.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must carry the return contract, and it only partially does: 'A link' is stated, but it is ambiguous whether the tool opens the browser or returns a URL the agent should surface. With 5 optional parameters and a prefill contract, a sentence on precedence between app/look and kind/model would close the remaining gap.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds relational meaning the schema lacks: 'app on a chosen look' and 'studio with a model and prompt filled in' explain how the parameters combine into the two distinct modes. It stops short of explaining behavior when conflicting params (e.g. both app and kind) are supplied.

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 resource (a link that opens Tanvo preconfigured) and enumerates the two modes: an app on a chosen look, or a studio with model/prompt prefilled. It is distinguishable from the generate_* siblings because it produces a UI link rather than a generation, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Gives a clear positive trigger: 'Use it when the user wants to upload photos and tweak settings themselves, or has no API key.' That condition implicitly routes the agent away from generate_image/video/music, but no alternative is named and no explicit when-not case is stated.

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