Create an image ad for my brand

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context — generation is brand-grounded and falls back to a default saved brand — but says nothing about cost, latency, whether a job/asset is created, or what happens when 'wait' is false.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the one-shot framing and the brand-grounding behavior; nothing is padded or repeated from the 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the brand-grounding plus default-brand fallback are the key behavioral facts. The remaining gap is sibling differentiation versus 'generate_image_ad' and any cost/async caveat.

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 only 29% (just 'prompt' and 'wait'), so the description must compensate. It does add genuine meaning for brandId/brandSlug by stating the default-brand fallback, but leaves 'count', 'model' and 'aspectRatio' completely unexplained in both schema and prose.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('generates a static image ad') plus the distinguishing constraint that output is grounded in the saved brand's logo, colors, tone and products. It does not, however, explain how it differs from the sibling 'generate_image_ad', which an agent must disambiguate before choosing.

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?

There is no when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of the near-identical sibling 'generate_image_ad'. The only routing-adjacent sentence ('Uses the default saved brand unless brandId/brandSlug is given') is a parameter default, not a usage rule.

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