flow_generate_image

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

The description fully discloses behavior: for auto_confirm=false, it fills prompt, selects model/ratio, takes screenshot, returns 'ready_for_confirmation'. For auto_confirm=true, it verifies interface mode, model, takes verification screenshot, then clicks Generate, waits, and downloads. Warns about credit consumption. No annotations to contradict.

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 relatively long but every sentence provides necessary detail. It front-loads the credit warning and uses bullet-like structure with punctuation. Some redundancy could be trimmed, but overall efficient.

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 parameters, no output schema), the description comprehensively covers behavior, prerequisites, side effects (credit consumption), and distinguishes between preparation and execution modes. No gaps.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds credit warning for auto_confirm and context for brand and project_name, but most parameters are already well-described in the schema.

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 it generates images, with specific verb 'generate' and resource 'image'. It distinguishes between two modes (preparation vs. execution) and implicitly differentiates from video generation by mentioning checking for IMAGE mode.

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?

Explicit usage guidance: auto_confirm=false prepares only, no credit consumption; auto_confirm=true executes generation and consumes credits. Also instructs to verify mode is IMAGE, not Video, and that model must be an image model.

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