Write screenshot headings

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

Annotations only declare the mutation/async profile; the description adds the important behaviors — AI-generated content, non-destructive preservation of existing headings, and that this is a background job requiring a subsequent get_screenshots read. It also documents generation constraints (verb first, one benefit, 34/40 chars). Provider cost/rate limits and failure handling are not covered.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and constraint, then the overwrite rule, then the async/follow-up note. The parenthetical constraint block is dense but every clause carries actionable 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?

For a non-idempotent, open-world generation tool with no output schema, the description covers what it produces, what it preserves, how it runs (background) and how to retrieve results. It omits provider/permission prerequisites implied by the ai and projectId params.

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 would be 3, but the description adds real semantics: the interplay between overwrite and slideId ('unless overwrite is true or slideId names one slide') and the output constraint of the main locale and character limits that shape what the ai/directions params produce.

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+resource: the AI writes the one-line heading printed on each screenshot slide. It is clearly distinct from siblings like get_screenshots (read) and screenshots_translate (localization), and it even names get_screenshots as the follow-up read step.

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 concrete conditions: existing headings are kept unless overwrite is true or slideId targets a single slide, and it states the prerequisite ('Slides and images are set up in the app') plus the next step ('then read get_screenshots'). It does not explicitly route the agent away from near alternatives, but the usage context is clear.

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