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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses the 4,500+ step rank-64 training, .safetensors output, reference pack, perpetual commercial license, synthetic-person guarantee, and the conditional training-start workflow. This goes well beyond a simple 'creates' or 'updates' statement.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and packs deliverables, licensing, workflow, and pricing into three information-dense sentences. It is slightly long, but every clause contributes operational or commercial meaning with no 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 paid custom-training tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential flow: what the user receives, what the agent should capture in the actorBrief, the required follow-up face choice, and the flat $48 price. It omits delivery time and result-return mechanics, but those are secondary for correctly starting the transaction.

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 only 20%, so the description needed to compensate for the undocumented parameters apiKey, currency, actorName, and webhookUrl. It only elaborates on the actor brief and the face-selection step, leaving important invocation details about authentication, currency handling, and webhook behavior unexplained.

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 opens with a specific action—'Commission a custom ULTRA-trained LoRA digital actor'—and specifies the exact deliverable format, training scale, and identity purpose. It also distinguishes this tool from the sibling inkflow_choose_actor_face by positioning it as the ordering step that precedes face selection.

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 clearly explains the usage sequence: order, receive candidate thumbnails, then choose a face before training starts. It names the next tool to call, inkflow_choose_actor_face, which gives an agent actionable routing guidance, though it does not explicitly exclude alternatives like inkflow_order or inkflow_free_samples.

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