sym_generate

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden and mostly meets it: it discloses async queueing, immediate jobId return, credit/cost behavior, and that the extension waits and downloads files. It does not cover failure modes, cancellation, or exact side effects of a real run beyond spending credits.

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?

Every sentence carries useful information: mode distinctions, async behavior, wet/dry-run cost guidance, and the follow-up tool. The density is high, but the structure makes it scannable and the most critical safeguards are clearly emphasized.

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 complex generation tool with no output schema, it covers the essential return path (jobId → sym_wait) and the mandatory cost-safety workflow. It omits error-handling behavior and leaves 'prefix' unexplained, making it slightly incomplete for fully autonomous invocation.

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?

The description materially extends the schema by explaining mode-specific capacities (r2v limits, i2v frame counts, i2i models) and the dryRun return payload. It does not compensate for the undocumented 'prefix' parameter, so parameter guidance is strong but not complete.

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 precise action: 'Queue video/image generation in the live Symphony account' and identifies the four supported modes. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling read/status/download tools.

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?

Provides explicit operational guidance: ALWAYS use dryRun:true first unless the user confirmed cost, and directs retrieval through sym_wait. Mode selection is implied clearly, but it does not explicitly contrast this tool with closer generation-related siblings like sym_transform or sym_tryon.

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