seedream_merge_images

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses that the tool generates a new image by merging URLs and a prompt, and that up to 10 images are supported. However, it does not mention any behavioral traits like output resolution constraints, processing time, or whether the original images are modified. Given the lack of annotations, this is adequate but not thorough.

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 extremely concise: a one-line purpose, a short explanation of usage, and two examples. Every sentence adds value, and there is no filler. It is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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's moderate complexity (8 parameters, 2 required, no output schema), the description covers the essential aspects: how to use, what parameters are needed, and how to refer to images. It lacks details about the return format or model differences, but the schema already provides parameter descriptions. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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 100%, so parameters are already well-documented in the schema. The description adds value by explaining that images can be referenced as '图1' etc. in the prompt and provides examples, but this reinforces rather than significantly extends the schema descriptions. A score of 3 is appropriate.

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 '多图融合：融合多张图片生成新图片' which translates to a specific verb+resource: merging multiple images into a new one. It provides concrete examples and distinguishes this tool from siblings like text_to_image or image_to_image by focusing on multi-image fusion.

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 explicitly tells when to use the tool (when you have multiple images to merge) and includes a limit of 10 images. It does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to alternatives, but the context is clear enough that an agent would understand this is for merging, not generation from scratch.

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