enhance_prompt

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true. The description adds transparency about cost and access: 'Free, no API key needed.' This supplements the annotations well, though no further behavioral details (e.g., output format) are given.

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 extremely concise (two sentences) and front-loads the core purpose. No superfluous words; every sentence adds value.

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 simple tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main use case and usage context. However, it does not explain the return value format or error scenarios, which could be considered a minor omission.

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 100%, so the schema already describes both parameters. The description only mentions the 'prompt' parameter with an example but does not discuss the 'style' parameter or its enum values, adding marginal value beyond the schema.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Transform a simple idea into a professional image generation prompt.' It provides an example and distinguishes from siblings like 'generate_image' by focusing on prompt enhancement rather than image generation.

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 explicitly states when to use: 'Use when the user provides a brief description... and needs a detailed, high-quality prompt.' It suggests combining with 'gallery inspiration' but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, which is a minor gap.

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