Generate an image

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and covers retry-on-failure, blocking behavior, reference image limits and cost, and style consistency. It omits some details like rate limits or auth requirements, but the provided info is substantial and honest.

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 six sentences, each providing distinct and valuable information. It front-loads the core action, then efficiently covers reference images, style, retry, and blocking. There is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 complexity (11 parameters) and lack of output schema, the description covers the main functional aspects: models, reference images, style, retry, and return behavior. It does not detail output format beyond URLs or list all models, but the essential context for selection and invocation is present.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds significant context beyond individual parameter descriptions, such as how reference_images are used (up to 14, free, guidance woven into prompt) and the role of style for visual coherence. This enhances understanding of parameter interactions.

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 explicitly states 'Generate an image' with a specific set of models, clearly distinguishing it from sibling generation tools for video, 3D, audio, etc. It also mentions use cases like image-to-image and character consistency, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explains when to use the tool (image generation with Pixmax models) and describes key behaviors like blocking or returning a task ID. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or compare with other image generators, but the sibling tools are different modalities, so the context is sufficient.

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