image_multi_reference

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the input limit (2-10) and that images are local, but does not mention output file handling, side effects, or any prerequisites. The prompt guidance implies behavioral expectations of the model, but important operational details are absent.

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?

The description is two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core function and followed by a focused prompt guidance tip. No redundant or filler content; every sentence adds value.

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 the tool has 6 parameters and no annotations, the description is not fully complete. It covers the core behavior and offers prompt guidance, and the presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values. However, optional parameters and explicit usage exclusions are missing, leaving moderate gaps for an agent to invoke the tool optimally.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It partially explains the prompt parameter (must specify each reference image's contribution) and implies image_paths are local file paths. However, it ignores size, model, quality, and output_dir entirely, leaving these parameters undocumented and under-specified.

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 a specific verb+resource: 'fuses 2 to 10 local reference images to generate a new image.' This explicitly differentiates it from sibling tools like image_generate (likely text-to-image) and image_edit (single-image editing), establishing a distinct multi-reference generation purpose.

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?

It provides clear context: use when you have 2-10 local reference images to synthesize. It also gives explicit prompt-writing guidance ('describe which composition, color scheme, character, or product features each reference image provides'), which aids correct usage. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it.

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