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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations: it costs credits from the user's Pixly balance, preserves the original layout exactly, and omits written dimensions. This is more than the readOnlyHint/destructiveHint annotations alone provide, and there is no contradiction with them.

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 carrying a distinct piece of information: core transformation, fidelity constraints, and cost. It is front-loaded and not padded, though the list of source image types is somewhat redundant with the schema.

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?

Given the output schema and fully documented parameters, the description covers the key operational details: input types, output modes, fidelity behavior, and credit cost. It does not explain return values, but that is unnecessary because an output schema exists. The only minor gap is not restating the oneOf imageUrl/r2Path requirement, though the schema covers it.

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 100%, and the parameter descriptions already document look, r2Path, and imageUrl, including the 'either imageUrl or r2Path is required' constraint. The overall description repeats some input/output context but does not add new parameter-level semantics, so the baseline of 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 uses a specific verb and resource: turning a floor plan image into a polished 2D furnished plan or 3D isometric cutaway. It gives clear input examples and output forms, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like virtual_staging or restyle_room.

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 is explicit about the input domain: any picture of a floor plan, including hand sketches, brochure photos, blueprints, and screenshots. It does not name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the input criteria are clear enough to guide selection.

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