generate_image

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this creates a 'NEW image' which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, output format, or error conditions. The description adds basic context about creating from scratch but lacks richer behavioral details.

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?

Two concise sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second provides crucial usage guidance. Every word earns its place, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 single-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage but no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate purpose and usage guidance. However, it lacks information about what the tool returns (no output schema) and doesn't address potential behavioral aspects like generation time, quality constraints, or failure modes that would be helpful for a generative 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents the single 'prompt' parameter. The description adds minimal value by reinforcing that the prompt should describe a 'NEW image to create from scratch', but this is essentially repeating what's in the schema description. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the verb 'Generate' and resource 'image', specifying it's 'from text prompt' and 'NEW'. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools by stating 'not when modifying an existing one', which contrasts with 'edit_image' in the sibling list.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use this ONLY when creating a completely new image, not when modifying an existing one.' This clearly defines when to use this tool versus the 'edit_image' sibling alternative, with a strong exclusion statement.

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