generate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two real behavioral traits: the call consumes provider credits and requires the Glob app to be open. However, it says nothing about whether generation blocks or is queued (relevant given a queue_status sibling), what gets written back to the asset .md, or whether existing images are replaced.

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?

Purpose and cost/app prerequisites are front-loaded, which is right, but the action glossary is delivered as one dense comma-separated run-on with parenthetical clauses, making it harder to scan than a short list. There is little wasted wording, but the structure is cramped rather than clean.

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 complex tool (8 actions, 7 params, no annotations, no output schema) it covers the action dimension well and flags the credit/app preconditions. It leaves meaningful holes: no indication of latency or async/queue behavior, no explanation of count bounds, project, or source relative to the winner, and no sense of what a successful call produces.

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 only 29%, and the description compensates by glossing every enum value of the required 'action' parameter (candidates, variant, edit, views, prop_sheet, make_3d, rig, animate) and by tying 'instruction' and 'action_ids' to the specific actions that require them. Unaddressed are count, project, and the 'winner' notion behind source, but the highest-risk parameter is well explained.

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 ('Start image/3D generation for an asset .md') and then enumerates the eight generation modes, so an agent knows this is the generation entry point rather than a workspace or winner-picking tool. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with siblings like pick_winner or open_glob, but the resource and scope are unambiguous.

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 explicit per-action usage conditions: variant/edit 'need instruction, work on the winner', animate 'needs action_ids', prop_sheet operates on 'all props of a level picture'. It also states two hard prerequisites (costs provider credits, the Glob app must be open). The gap is that it never says when not to use this tool or which sibling to reach for instead.

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