vizcom_publish_result

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

The description states 'Idempotent per prompt/board', but annotations declare idempotentHint=false, a direct conflict on the same behavioral property. The mask/source-file disclosure ('preserve all outside-mask pixels exactly') is genuinely useful context, but the idempotency claim undermines trust in the stated behavior.

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 core action and followed by the two behavioral notes. No filler, though the idempotency sentence is ambiguous enough to cost a point.

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 7-parameter mutation with no output schema and zero schema descriptions, the description leaves two required parameters (x, y) completely undefined — an agent cannot know they are board placement coordinates. The mask-preservation semantics are covered well, but coordinate placement and the result of a publish call are not.

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% across 7 parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It only maps 'prompt/board' to promptId/workbenchId and hints that sourceFile/maskFile are the original PNG and mask; the required x/y placement coordinates and the 'name' parameter are never explained 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?

The description uses a specific verb and resource — 'Place a completed Studio render/edit onto a board as a visible image' — so the agent knows exactly what the tool produces. It stops short of naming a sibling it is distinct from (e.g. vizcom_generate_board or vizcom_import_image), which are nearby in the same namespace.

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?

'completed Studio render/edit' implies the precondition that a render must already exist, so usage timing is implied rather than stated. There is no explicit when-not guidance and no routing to alternatives such as vizcom_import_image for non-render assets.

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