Generate images

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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true; the description goes well beyond that by disclosing the credit cost range (1-24), that charges apply even if the result is unused, and that the call returns images synchronously with no polling. These are the exact behavioral traits an agent needs before 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?

Three sentences, cost warning front-loaded before the prerequisite lookups and the polling clarification. Every sentence carries distinct, non-redundant information with no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description still tells the agent what comes back (images immediately, no job to poll), what it costs, and which sibling tools supply valid argument values. Nothing needed to invoke this correctly is missing.

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 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter including the references route constraint and count cost multiplier. The description only echoes the sourcing advice for model/tier/aspect, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 verb and resource ('Generate images from a prompt') and is immediately distinguishable from the sibling generate_video. The synchronous-return note further pins down what this tool is versus job-based siblings like get_video_job.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to list_studio_models for valid model/tier/aspect values and to whoami for balance checks before calling, and contrasts the flow with job-polling tools ('there is no separate job to poll'). When-to-use and prerequisite sequencing are both spelled out.

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