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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses the most consequential trait: this operation spends Kreavo credits, is gated to paid plans, and requires consent for the person depicted. That is real context an agent needs before invoking a paid mutation. It still omits whether the call is synchronous or returns a job to poll via kreavo_check_image_status, and what a successful response contains.

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?

Information-dense with no wasted sentences, and the parameter block is compact. It does front-load the credit-spend note ahead of what the tool actually does, which slightly buries the purpose, but every clause earns its 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?

With four parameters, no output schema, and no annotation detail beyond hints, the description covers inputs well but leaves the return path ambiguous. An agent cannot tell from this whether it gets an image URL directly or a job id requiring kreavo_check_image_status, which matters for a credit-consuming open-world call.

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% and the schema declares no enums, so the description carries the full burden. It documents all four parameters and supplies the missing enum domains (upper_body|lower_body|dress) plus the aspect_ratio options and the 3:4 default, which the schema does not convey at all. Only URL format or image constraints are left unstated, a minor gap.

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?

"Virtual try-on: see how a garment looks on a person" states a specific action and resource that is clearly distinct from generation siblings like kreavo_generate_photoshoot or kreavo_image_edit. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so differentiation is inferred rather than taught.

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 gives a hard precondition ("Only use photos of people who agreed to it") and routes to kreavo_list_models for cost and kreavo_get_credits for balance. However, it never says when this should be chosen over siblings such as photoshoot or product video, leaving tool selection to inference.

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