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

Annotations already declare a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive mutation, and the description usefully builds on that by disclosing that calls are paid from credits and that an unanswered call may already have started, with concrete recovery guidance. It does not address ownership/permission requirements or what happens to the source photo, but the annotation baseline covers most of the safety profile.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and every clause carries information, but the whole thing is a single dense sentence chain stitched with semicolons and colons. Splitting the precedence rule, the credit semantics, and the retry warning into distinct sentences would make it easier to scan under time pressure.

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 paid, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema, the description covers the two things an agent most needs: where the price comes from and how to avoid double-charging on retry. It stops short of describing the result (new photo vs. modified original) or expected latency.

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 0%, so the description must carry the burden, and it does: text is constrained to the place name in up to 300 characters, scene refers to the app's presets, precedence between the two is stated, and max_credits is defined as the agreed price sourced from get_shoot or list_photos. Only photo_id is left implicit (as 'one of the user's photos').

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 – relocating the person in one of the user's photos to a different setting while preserving pose and framing. That framing implicitly separates it from remove_background and reroll, though it never names those siblings directly.

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?

Clear operating context: choose either a preset scene or a free-text place, and the scene takes precedence when both are supplied. It also directs the agent to get_shoot or list_photos to obtain the price and warns to check list_photos before retrying an unanswered call. It does not explicitly say when to prefer a sibling like reroll or remove_background instead.

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