Generate media with Chutes

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

Adds valuable context beyond the destructive=true/openWorld=true annotations: default save location, that the saved path is returned, that the server reads and base64-encodes referenced workspace files, and that long video/music jobs block with progress updates. It does not explain what happens when an asset already exists (overwrite semantics live only in the schema) or any rate/cost limits.

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?

Four dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action and outcome, then parameter guidance, then output location, then long-job behavior. No filler or repetition of schema fields.

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 an output schema exists and annotations cover the safety profile, the description supplies the essential operational context: the describe_media_model dependency, file-path based editing, where results land, and blocking behavior for long jobs. It stops short of covering overwrite/conflict behavior and timeout handling for a destructive tool.

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?

With only 50% schema description coverage, the description meaningfully compensates for the most important parameters: it explains that `params` is a cord-specific payload sourced from describe_media_model and may reference workspace paths, and it clarifies `output_dir` semantics with a default. Other params (cord, filename, overwrite, timeout_ms, kind, model) remain unexplained in the description.

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 outcome: run a generation and save the resulting asset into the workspace. By naming `params` as the payload composed from describe_media_model, it clearly positions itself as the execution step versus the sibling list/describe tools.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent to compose `params` using describe_media_model first and notes that editing workflows may pass workspace file paths for the server to read and encode. It gives clear context but does not state when *not* to use it or compare against the siblings directly.

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