image_to_image

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the core function and does not mention constraints like URL accessibility, model compatibility, output format behavior, or any rate/cost considerations. The schema provides some parameter details but the description itself adds little behavioral context.

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, using a single short sentence after the initial '图生图' label. It is front-loaded and wastes few words, though it may be overly terse given the tool's complexity.

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, no output schema, no annotations, and sibling tools for comparison, the description is too minimal to be fully contextually complete. It lacks guidance on expected outputs, when to choose this tool, or how the generation behaves with multiple reference images.

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 adequately documents all parameters. The description adds no semantic value beyond the schema, only reinforcing the 'reference images' concept already captured by image_urls. This meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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?

Description clearly states the tool's action: '图生图。基于参考图片生成新图片' (image-to-image, generate a new image based on reference images). It specifies both the resource (reference images) and the verb (generate), and the reference-image basis distinguishes it from sibling tools like generate_image.

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?

Usage is implied: it is for generating images from reference images. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as generate_image or generate_image_set, and no mention of 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.