flow_generate_image

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that default behavior does not click Generate, returns 'ready_for_confirmation', consumes credits only on auto_confirm=true, performs mode/model checks, takes verification screenshots, and awaits/downloads results. This is exemplary behavioral transparency.

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 verbose paragraph but front-loads the critical credit warning and structures the default vs confirm flow clearly. Every sentence carries behavioral information, though the repeated credit warning in schema could make the description slightly redundant.

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 (8 params, no annotations, no output schema), the description covers the full workflow: preparation, verification, generation, and download. It states the return value 'ready_for_confirmation' and the credit-consumption trigger, making it complete for an agent to invoke safely.

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?

All 8 parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description adds the credit warning and verification behavior that maps to auto_confirm, and clarifies model compatibility (image models only). However, much of the auto_confirm detail duplicates the schema's own warning, so added value is moderate.

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 this tool generates images, with specific details on the auto_confirm parameter controlling preparation vs actual generation. It differentiates from video generation by referencing 'mode IMAGE (pas Vidéo)' and limits to NAN/BANANA image models, making it distinct from sibling flow_generate_video.

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?

It gives explicit guidance on when to use auto_confirm=false (preparation, no credits) vs true (actual generation after verification). It warns about credit consumption and instructs that the interface must be in Image mode, not Video, effectively directing users away from using this for video. No alternative tool is named, but the video mode exclusion serves as a clear constraint.

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