Create Variations

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing credit cost (10/image, 15/carousel slide), the multiplicative count semantics, where artifacts land (user's Canvora workspace) and that URLs are returned. This makes the non-idempotent, cost-incurring, destructiveHint=true profile actionable rather than just flagged.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and trigger words, then behavior, then semantics and cost, with labeled sections. Slightly long and the IMPORTANT/confirm_generation warning partially repeats the opening distinction, but nothing is padding.

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?

No output schema, yet the description covers return values (preview/downloadable URLs), persistence to the workspace, cost, and the visual multiplication rule. For a 2-parameter mutation tool this is sufficient to call correctly and set user expectations.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load and largely does: 'count applies PER VISUAL' with a concrete worked example (count=2 on 2 visuals yields 4 images) removes the main ambiguity, and the tool's purpose makes generation_id self-evident. Minor gap: no note on valid generation_id sources or bounds on count.

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 (create variations of an existing generation) and immediately separates itself from the two most confusable siblings: 'creating a new generation' and confirm_generation. An agent can route correctly from the first two sentences alone.

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?

Gives explicit triggering language ('variations', 'alternatives', 'different versions', 'more options') plus a hard exclusion ('Do NOT use confirm_generation for variations') and points to the dashboard per-visual option for the narrower case. When-to-use, when-not-to-use, and the alternative are all spelled out.

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