sym_tryon

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does disclose a key behavioral trait—'Returns jobId'—signaling async submission. However, it omits how results are retrieved (suggesting sym_status/sym_wait), credit consumption, side effects, and failure modes, which matters more given the absence of annotations.

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?

Three dense sentences front-load the core purpose, then compress parameter sourcing and the return value into a small footprint. Every sentence earns its place, though the telegraphic 'kind apparel' / 'kind product' phrasing is slightly awkward.

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 6-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the two required parameters and the async jobId return, enough to invoke correctly. It leaves the optional parameters (prompt, dryRun, folder) and the post-submission workflow (fetching the finished video) to inference from sibling names.

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 17% (only images is documented), so the description must compensate. It does add meaning for kind (wearing apparel vs presenting product), images (product/apparel photos), and avatarId sourcing. But prompt, dryRun, and folder receive no explanation in either the schema or the description, so compensation is partial.

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 behavior: generating a video of an avatar wearing the user's apparel (kind=apparel) or presenting the product (kind=product), and names the source of avatarId (sym_avatars kind=tryon|product). It is clear and specific, but never explicitly contrasts with near siblings like sym_avatar_video or sym_generate, so differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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 a concrete prerequisite ('avatarId from sym_avatars kind=tryon|product'), which routes the agent to the correct source tool, and implies usage for try-on scenarios. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternatives for cases like plain avatar video.

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