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

Adds substantial information beyond the minimal annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true): rate limits (3 per IP per day plus a site-wide budget), retention ('photos are not stored'), the AI-generated output labeling, and content-policy restrictions with a link. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs before invoking a mutation tool.

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-loads the purpose, then layers requirements and limits in a compact paragraph with no filler sentences. It is dense but each clause (consent, policies, limits, retention) earns its place.

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 7-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers return values (labeled preview image plus shop-similar link), consent, and operational limits. The remaining gap is the unexplained who/mode/site enums, which the schema also leaves bare.

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 only 57%, and the description does little to compensate. The 'edit vs generate' phrasing loosely implies mode=edit, but the opaque enums who (one/left/middle/right/all), mode (auto/edit/generate), and site (shopfashion/scarves) are never explained, leaving nearly half the parameters ambiguous.

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 and resource ('Preview a described clothing or accessory style on a photo'), and clarifies it can also edit an existing garment, which distinguishes it from a pure generation tool. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling outfit_tryon, which an agent would need to reason about.

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?

Gives clear usage context with concrete examples ('make the skirt mini', 'navy instead of red') and states the consent precondition. It does not name the sibling outfit_tryon or explain when to prefer this tool over it, so routing still requires inference.

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