Create a poster from your own design

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

Despite no annotations, the description reveals important behaviors: no AI generation, user controls all elements, and returns view/share/edit links. It could be more specific about validation or side effects but is quite transparent.

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 three succinct sentences, each adding essential information with no redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core action and immediately provides prerequisite and alternative guidance.

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?

Given the nested design object and no output schema, the description covers the prerequisite, return format, and key behavioral aspects. It could mention overwrite behavior or identification details but is largely complete.

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%, and the description adds value by reminding to use get_design_guide for the design parameter's IR format and explaining the share parameter's default and privacy implications beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool's verb ('Save a poster design') and resource ('Ridvay design IR'), and distinguishes it from related tools. It specifies that the user controls every element and Ridvay only stores/renders/shares, leaving no ambiguity.

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 description explicitly advises calling get_design_guide first for the IR format and using generate_poster when AI should do the designing, providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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