ghl_social_create_watermark

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses authentication requirements, the required OAuth scope, the endpoint, and the operational meaning of the accountIds binding at post-publish time. It also mentions image constraints through the body field context, giving the agent rich behavioral context for a write operation.

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 reasonably front-loaded and useful, with the core creation purpose stated first. It is slightly repetitive at the start ("Create a watermark template" followed by "Create a new reusable watermark template"), but the extra endpoint and auth details earn their place.

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 create tool with complete schema coverage, annotations, and no output schema, the description supplies the missing context an agent needs: token requirements, OAuth scope, endpoint, and account-binding behavior. Nothing material appears absent for correct invocation.

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 100%, so the parameters and nested body fields are already well documented. The description reinforces the stored fields and account binding, but it does not add significant syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: "Create a new reusable watermark template for a location." It also explains what the template stores, so an agent can distinguish this from applying a watermark or updating one. It stops short of explicitly naming sibling alternatives such as update_watermark or add_watermark_on_image.

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?

It gives useful usage context: the template is resolved at post-publish time through the accountIds binding, and account IDs can be fetched via the Get Accounts endpoint. It does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over update_watermark or add_watermark_on_image, so it lacks full exclusion guidance.

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