media.image.generate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It reveals that the operation is a job submission and that the job is durable, but it does not disclose whether a job ID is returned, how to check status, failure modes, permissions, or side effects.

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 a single tight sentence with no filler, which is efficient. However, it is under-specified rather than appropriately sized, given the ambiguous schema and lack of behavioral annotations.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and a nearly empty parameter schema, the single sentence is insufficient. An agent cannot tell what the submit call returns, how to track the resulting job, or what parameters are expected beyond the bare name 'prompt'.

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?

The schema declares a required 'prompt' but leaves properties empty and allows additional properties, so the parameter's type and format are essentially undocumented. The description never explains what the prompt should contain or what additional options are accepted, leaving the agent to guess.

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 ('Submit') and resource ('a durable image-generation job'), making the tool's core purpose clear. It is naturally distinguished from siblings like media.video.generate or media.subtitle.generate by the image focus, though the term 'durable' is unexplained jargon.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as media.video.generate, media.compose, or the job-related siblings. 'Durable' hints at asynchronous usage, but no explicit conditions, alternatives, or exclusions are provided.

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