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

It directly discloses the critical behaviors: spending credits, async operation, idempotent retry semantics, and that a new version may spend again. This aligns with the destructive, idempotent, and open-world annotations.

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?

It is compact and front-loaded with the primary effect, then adds return values and retry semantics. No unnecessary text, and critical warnings are prominent.

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 rich annotations and an output schema, the description provides all necessary context: cost impact, async nature, return IDs, polling, timeout handling, and new-version spending behavior.

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?

Although schema descriptions are absent, the description clarifies that quote_id must be an authorized quote and explains idempotency_key behavior by warning against resubmitting with a new key on timeout.

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 clearly states the core action: spending quoted credits and starting async generation. Combined with the tool name generate_changes, it precisely identifies the operation as a generation workflow.

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 provides explicit operational guidance: requires an authorized quote, returns batch/job IDs, poll status, never resubmit with a new key on timeout, and a new version needs a new quote and may spend again.

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