render_edition_pdf

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

With no annotations, the description carries the load and does disclose the key side effect: a non-live render is persisted as a proof that can never print, and output is one image per page. What it omits is whether the render mutates the edition object, whether proof storage is limited or costs anything, and any permission prerequisites.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and output, then the dangerous parameter, then the recovery loop. Nothing is redundant and every sentence carries distinct 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?

Covers output shape and the live/proof semantics well for a tool with no annotations or output schema, but the required nested `edition` payload is left entirely undefined, which is the main thing an agent needs before calling. Adequate for the safety story, incomplete for the input contract.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains `live` well, including the default-false consequence, but the required `edition` parameter is a nested object with additionalProperties and gets no explanation of expected structure or required sub-fields anywhere.

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 and resource ('Lay out an edition and return every page as an image'), plus the return format, which an agent can use to distinguish this from print_edition or publish_edition. It does not explicitly name the sibling alternatives, and the name says 'pdf' while the description promises page images, a minor mismatch left unexplained.

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 an explicit conditional for the risky path ('Set live=true only for today's real edition') and a follow-up workflow ('Fix any reported overflow by shortening copy, then render again'), which is genuine when-and-how guidance. It stops short of routing the agent between this and print_edition/publish_edition, so the sibling boundary is only implied.

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