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

Annotations declare non-readonly, open-world, non-idempotent, non-destructive. The description goes further than annotations by disclosing cost (1 credit per 1k image, 2 at 2k, 4 at 4k, multiplied by imageCount), latency (usually under a minute), and the returned artifact form. It omits any auth or async/polling detail, but the added cost/latency context is genuinely valuable.

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?

Front-loaded and compact, packing version, cost, latency, and output format into a few dense sentences with no filler. Slightly telegraphic, but nearly every clause carries a distinct fact.

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 28-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: reference conventions, version tradeoffs, resolution/cost, latency, and result form. It does not explain the account/email selection rules (left to the schema) or any async task handling, so it is strong but not fully 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds information the schema lacks: the prompt referencing syntax (@image_1 / @element_1) and version-specific defaults (v3 default with aspect auto vs o1 with 16:9). That is real added meaning beyond the field-level docs.

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 (generates images from a prompt) plus its distinguishing mechanism (up to 10 image/element references) and the endpoint. It differentiates itself from enhance/upscale siblings by the reference-driven generation. It does not, however, contrast against the closest siblings like kling_kolors_image or kling_kolors_elements_image, so it stops 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?

The description implies when the tool applies (prompt-driven generation with up to 10 references) and explains the @image_1 / @element_1 naming convention, but gives no explicit 'use this instead of X' routing or when-not-to-use guidance relative to the many sibling image tools.

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