novelai_augment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description should disclose behavioral details. It only lists available manipulations and gives no information about side effects, file handling, requirements, or reversibility. This is a significant gap for a tool that likely modifies images.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the core purpose and valid operations without wasted words.

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?

Without output schema or annotations, the description is too thin for a 6-parameter tool. It doesn't cover input/output paths, optional parameters, or operational details, leaving an agent to guess on several fields.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description must explain parameters. It adds meaning by enumerating valid values for 'tool' and referencing 'emotion', but leaves prompt, defry, and output_dir 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 clearly identifies a specific action ('image manipulations') and enumerates distinct operations with their string values. It differentiates from siblings by scope, though it doesn't name sibling tools explicitly.

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?

It implies usage through the list of operations (e.g., use for background removal), but doesn't provide explicit when-to-use vs alternatives like novelai_inpaint, nor conditions for selecting this tool over others.

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