Generate an image

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, openWorld=true, idempotent=false, destructive=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the call blocks and waits, then downloads the artifact, and reference images are an optional input path. It omits the cost/plan-consumption implication that the schema's `confirm` parameter hints at.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb+resource leads and the optional and post-processing behaviors follow. Every clause carries information.

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 an 11-parameter, open-world generation tool with no output schema, the description covers the core flow (generate, optional refs, wait, download) and the schema fills in polling, file naming, and directory details. It leaves the async jobId handoff and plan-cost consequence implicit, but nothing essential to a correct call is missing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description largely restates what the schema already documents (reference images capped at 4, model examples, download-on-completion) without adding syntax, defaults, or edge-case guidance for the 11 parameters.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Generate an image on Axcel') and adds useful scope detail: named example models, optional reference-image guidance (up to 4), and the wait/download flow. It is clear what the tool does, though it never explicitly names the neighboring axcel_generate_video as the alternative, so the sibling distinction is left implicit in the word 'image'.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer 'use this when you want an image' and that reference images enable image-to-image. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or routing statement against axcel_generate_video, axcel_upload, or the library tools.

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