Generate a poster with Ridvay Studio

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It mentions the generation process, output (links to view/share/edit), and typical run time. It does not cover rate limits, errors, or destruction behavior, but the creation action is implied.

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 sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: what the tool does, what it returns, and how to use it. No unnecessary words; front-loaded with key 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?

No output schema exists, so the description adequately explains the return value (links). It covers parameters, usage advice, and run time. Missing details like error handling or success conditions, but sufficient for a generation tool with 4 simple parameters.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage, providing a solid baseline. The description adds value by explaining the structure of the prompt ('content, occasion, style, text'), clarifying the 'share' parameter, and giving examples for 'size'. This enriches understanding 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 specifies the verb 'generate' and the resource 'graphic design', listing multiple output types (poster, flyer, social-media post, etc.) and distinguishing from siblings like 'check_poster' and 'refine_poster' by emphasizing AI generation from a text brief.

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 advises users to describe content, occasion, style, and required text, and notes typical run time. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives like 'create_poster', 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.