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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the description's extra value is the credit cost (25), the asynchronous job model, and the project-id handoff. These are exactly the behavioral traits an agent needs before invoking. It doesn't state failure modes or turnaround expectations, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

Two tight paragraphs with zero filler; the behavioral line (what it does, cost, async handoff) is front-loaded in the second sentence. The safety policy leads the description rather than trailing it, which is defensible but slightly delays the core purpose statement.

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 a rich nested schema, full coverage, an output schema that already describes return values, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies everything remaining: the credit cost, async workflow, follow-up tool, and usage restrictions.

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 already documents person_file_path, garment_file_path, garment_type, and name in detail. The description only implicitly references the person and garment inputs and adds no syntax or format guidance beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: changes clothing in a person photo using a supplied garment reference image. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like edit_face_in_photo, swap_face_in_photo, and generate_headshot, which manipulate other aspects of a person photo.

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 gives explicit policy constraints (only the user's own likeness or authorized content; never impersonation, deception, sexual content, or minors) and the correct downstream flow: it starts a background job and the returned project id should be passed to wait_for_image_project. This names the follow-up tool directly.

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