Run any Luw.ai model (advanced)

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world, non-destructive. The description adds genuinely new behavior: it consumes credits like the model's own tool, and that image fields accept local paths and data: URIs. It does not, however, describe the response shape or async/polling behavior implied by the sibling luw_get_result.

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?

Front-loaded with the escape-hatch rationale, then the model list, then the parameter reference and credit warning. The long model enumeration is dense but earns its place since those ids are the accepted values; the doc URL is a reasonable substitute for inlined detail.

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 generic, open-parameter write tool with no output schema, the definition covers inputs well but says nothing about what is returned or whether the call is synchronous or needs a follow-up via luw_get_result. That omission matters for an agent deciding how to complete the workflow.

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% and both params are documented, but the params object is fully open (additionalProperties: {}), so the description carries real extra weight: it enumerates the 21 valid model ids and clarifies that image/mask/material/style_transfer/extra_image fields also accept local paths and data: URIs. That is information the schema cannot express.

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+resource (POST /generate with raw parameters) and explicitly positions itself as the escape hatch for models/options the dedicated tools don't cover. The enumerated model list makes it immediately distinguishable from the ~20 dedicated siblings.

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 clear when-to-use: models or options not covered by dedicated tools (e.g. persona-slot inputs, webhooks), which implies the alternative is the dedicated per-model tools. It doesn't explicitly instruct 'prefer the dedicated tool first', but the routing condition is unambiguous.

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