generate_image

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

Annotations already cover readOnly=false, idempotent=true and openWorld=true, yet the description goes further by disclosing that the call consumes account credits, that identical retries return the saved task, and that uncertain submissions are never auto-retried. That is genuinely additive behavioral context beyond the hints.

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?

Three dense sentences with the action and its cost front-loaded, followed by requirements and retry semantics. Every sentence carries information, though the phrasing is slightly compressed and could clarify what the retry guarantee applies to.

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 credit-consuming, non-idempotent-by-naive-reading mutation with no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, cost, and idempotency semantics. It omits what is returned (e.g. a task handle) and how to check progress, which keeps it from being fully complete.

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 33% (only request_id is documented). The description partially compensates by characterizing quote_id as a 'valid quote', request_id as 'stable', and max_credits as a 'maximum estimated credit budget', but it adds no format, range, or sourcing detail for quote_id and max_credits.

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+resource ('Submit a quoted image request') and adds the distinctive qualifier 'quoted', which signals the estimate-then-generate flow. It does not name the relevant siblings (estimate_image_cost, get_image_task), so an agent still has to infer the pipeline, but the core action is 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?

The description implies a prerequisite ('Requires a valid quote') which steers the agent toward an estimate step, and it flags retry behavior. However, it never names the alternatives or routing (e.g. estimate_image_cost to obtain the quote, get_image_task to poll), so usage is only implied rather than explicit.

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