Improve an image idea

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

Adds meaningful context beyond annotations: cost ('Free within server limits'), output nature ('never generates or includes an example image'), and retry behavior ('No automatic retries'). These are useful operational details not covered by readOnly/openWorld/idempotent/destructive hints.

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 tightly constructed sentences with zero waste. Purpose is front-loaded, followed by usage trigger and behavioral constraints.

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 low-complexity tool with one parameter, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, cost, output constraints, and retry behavior. Minor gap: it does not explicitly state that the return value is a text prompt, though 'never generates or includes an example image' strongly implies it.

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 description coverage, the description must explain the single 'query' parameter. It implies the query is the image idea ('Turn an image idea into...'), but does not clarify format, length limits (max 500 chars), or whether it should be a raw idea versus a structured description.

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: 'Turn an image idea into a usable prompt with InkRoom’s configured text model.' It also distinguishes itself from search_prompts by specifying it should be used after a search finds no match.

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?

Gives a clear triggering condition: 'Use after a successful search finds no match or when explicitly asked to rewrite.' This implicitly names search_prompts as the alternative, but does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., when a search match exists).

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