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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: the $0.10 per image cost is disclosed, and the asynchronous contract (returns generation_id, poll get_generation until 'completed') is explicitly stated. This is valuable operational detail that annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true) do not provide.

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 short sentences, each earning its place: the core function, the cost, and the async retrieval pattern. Information is front-loaded and there is zero filler.

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 simple 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers invocation, cost, return shape (generation_id), and the subsequent polling step. The only notable gap is the lack of differentiation from similar outfit/clothing tools, but the operational flow for calling this tool correctly is complete.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters (image as URL/base64, outfit with 500-char limit). The description adds no parameter-specific information, matching the baseline of 3 for well-covered schemas.

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 — 'Change outfits with a prompt' — making the core function clear. However, it does not differentiate the tool from near-identical siblings like ai_clothes_changer and ai_dress_changer, which appear to serve the same purpose, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

No guidance is given on when to choose this tool over ai_clothes_changer or ai_dress_changer, and with over 50 siblings this is a real selection hazard. The async workflow note hints at how to use it but provides no when/when-not context or alternatives.

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