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

Annotations already say this is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds important behavior beyond annotations: it spends credits, is all-or-nothing, and returns immediately while images take about 1–3 minutes. It does not describe failure modes or credit amounts, but the core asynchronous cost-bearing behavior is disclosed.

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 dense and front-loaded: purpose, shot behavior, add-to-set mode, timing, and next call are covered without filler. Every sentence contributes actionable information.

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 credit-spending asynchronous generation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: cost, all-or-nothing behavior, approximate duration, and the follow-up retrieval call. It could be slightly more complete by explicitly directing agents to estimate_cost or checking credit balance, but the schema and sibling tools fill most remaining gaps.

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 high at 88%, so the schema carries most parameter meaning. The description still adds value by clarifying where shot keys come from and how to use get_image_set imageSet.moreShots when adding images to a finished set.

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: it 'starts making the images of an image set' and also supports adding images to a finished set. It clearly distinguishes itself from plan_image_set and get_image_set by explaining that shots come from the plan and that get_image_set is the follow-up call.

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 clear when-to-use context for the two modes: normal generation from plan shots and adding new shot keys from get_image_set imageSet.moreShots. It also says to call get_image_set afterward, but does not explicitly route the agent to estimate_cost or another alternative for checking credit cost.

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