lunaar_studio_poses

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses credit cost, refund policy, and incompatibility with Summer/Kids items, which adds value. However, it omits other behavioral traits like processing time, idempotency, or side effects on the original item, leaving some gaps.

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 sentence followed by a short note, with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action and immediately follows with key constraints. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (a generation tool with credits and constraints), the description covers prerequisites, exclusions, and cost. However, it lacks any description of the output (e.g., format, what is returned) and does not provide an example. This leaves the agent uncertain about how to use the result.

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 50% with only parentEntityId having a description. The tool description improves this by clarifying that parentEntityId is 'the entityId returned by lunaar_studio_tryon—NOT the operationId.' For poseTypes, the description mentions the count (1-3) but does not explain the enum values, so the schema's enum alone provides the meaning. Overall, the description partially compensates for missing schema descriptions.

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 states 'Generate 1-3 alternate-pose variants of a previously rendered Studio item,' which provides a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like lunaar_studio_tryon by explicitly requiring a previously rendered item, clarifying the tool's role in the workflow.

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 includes explicit context on when to use (after rendering a Studio item) and when not to use ('Not available for Summer or Kids items'). It also mentions credit cost and auto-refund policy. However, it does not suggest alternative tools for excluded cases, preventing full guidance.

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