Generate/edit images. No refs=TTI. references[] (max 12; see field docs). Defaults: mode=auto, ratio=1:1, count<=8. resolution/quality per images_models_list. UI clients: after generating, MUST call creations_show with all identifiers; never stop at links.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mode | No | ||
| count | No | ||
| prompt | Yes | ||
| quality | No | ||
| references | No | ||
| resolution | No | ||
| aspectRatio | No | ||
| folderReference | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only indicate non-readOnly, non-idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds defaults (mode=auto, ratio=1:1, count<=8) and a post-generation requirement, but doesn't disclose what the tool returns, side effects beyond Generation, or whether it's synchronous/asynchronous. It doesn't contradict annotations, but it could provide more behavioral context.
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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. It packs in essential constraints and defaults without unnecessary fluff. The structure is logical: purpose, refs behavior, defaults, and a clear UI-client mandate.
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 8 parameters, no output schema, and minimal annotations, the description leaves many gaps: no return format, error behavior, or detailed parameter semantics. It also relies on external references (field docs, images_models_list) for critical details, making it incomplete for an agent to use effectively without additional lookups.
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 0%, so the description must compensate for eight parameters. It mentions references, mode, ratio, count, and resolution/quality but doesn't explain their meaning, format, or interplay. For instance, 'mode' and 'count' are not described at all beyond defaults. The pointer to images_models_list is helpful but not self-contained.
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 'Generate/edit images' and distinguishes between text-to-image (no references) and image editing (with references). It also provides specific constraints (max 12 refs, defaults) that differentiate it from sibling tools like generate_svg or variations.
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 clear usage context: when no references are provided, it's TTI; it lists defaults and points to images_models_list for resolution/quality. It also includes a specific mandatory post-action (call creations_show) for UI clients. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives like variations or editing tools beyond the basic refs distinction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.