Submit Modellix Image Task

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly=false, openWorld=true, idempotent=false, destructive=true. The description adds valuable context by mentioning the task is 'paid' (financial side effect), requiring 'explicit confirmation' (safety guard), and 'revalidate the route' (prerequisite check), which goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 efficient sentence, front-loaded with the condition 'After explicit confirmation,' and every phrase contributes to the meaning. It is somewhat dense with three sequential actions but contains no redundant words.

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 complexity (18 parameters, 4 required, 0% schema documentation), this description is inadequate. It does not explain the workflow relationship to prepare/finalize tools, what 'revalidate the route' entails, how confirmation is expressed, or the cost implications of a 'paid' task. The output schema exists but does not cover prerequisites or side effects.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the lack of parameter explanations. It only vaguely references 'route' (likely routeFingerprint), 'inputs' (possibly sourceAssetIds), and 'requested output' (maybe count), but does not explain the 18 parameters, including required ones like prompt, mode, or confirmedPaidSubmission. This leaves substantial ambiguity.

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 identifies the tool's action: after confirmation, it revalidates the route, uploads inputs, and creates one paid Modellix task per requested output. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like prepare_modellix_image_task and finalize_modellix_image_task by implying submission as the final step, though the phrasing is somewhat convoluted.

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 specifies it should be used 'after explicit confirmation' and includes actions like revalidating the route and uploading ordered inputs, implying it is the submission step in a workflow. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, though the context is clear.

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