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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the core behavior and the account scope, but it does not mention whether the call consumes credits, what response format is returned, or whether authentication is required beyond the assumed API key.

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?

A single, focused sentence that front-loads the purpose and contains no filler or redundant phrasing. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only balance check with no output schema, the description covers the essential invocation intent. It could be slightly more complete by indicating the response shape or that the call does not modify any state, but nothing critical is missing for basic selection and invocation.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately adds no parameter details because there are none; the empty schema is complete and no further parameter semantics are needed.

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 action ('Return') and resource ('current credit balance'), scoped to the API key's account. This is immediately distinct from the sibling generation/edit tools, which all perform creative/media operations.

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 implies when to use it — whenever the agent needs the current credit balance — but it does not explicitly discuss when not to use it or mention alternatives. The sibling tools are so different in purpose that confusion is unlikely, but explicit guidance is still absent.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure, yet it only says 'edit'. It does not disclose whether the edit is applied in place, returns a new image, consumes credits, requires authentication, or behaves asynchronously.

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 compact sentence with no filler. It front-loads the purpose and adds useful concrete examples of allowed feature ids.

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?

For a 5-parameter tool with nested options, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is incomplete. An agent cannot know which features require which optional parameters or what a successful call returns.

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 only 40%, and the description contributes little beyond feature id examples. prompt, maskUrl, and options are left undefined, and options is a free-form nested object that needs more explanation.

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 names a specific action and resource ('Edit an image') and lists concrete feature ids, so an agent can tell this is an image-editing tool. It does not explicitly compare to the sibling generate tools, but the edit verb is enough to distinguish it from generation.

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 when-to-use guidance or mention of when generate_image or generate_video would be preferable. The only usage hint is to pass a feature id, which is already required by the schema.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior, and it does reveal the return type: 'Returns CDN image URL(s).' It also clarifies that reference images enable image-to-image editing. However, it does not mention whether generation is asynchronous, consumes credits, has content policy limits, or what happens if generation fails.

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?

Two sentences with no filler: the first states the core operation and optional mode, the second states the return behavior. The most important information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a simple generation call with only 'prompt' required, the description provides enough to get started and specifies the return format. However, it lacks guidance on sibling-tool selection, default behaviors, and API-specific constraints such as credit usage or async behavior, leaving some operational gaps for an agent.

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 description adds some conceptual meaning by framing 'prompt' as the text-to-image input and 'images' as reference inputs for image-to-image editing, which maps to the schema. With 8 parameters and only 50% schema description coverage, it does not compensate for undocumented parameters like numImages limits, resolution defaults, or enableWebSearch semantics.

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 the specific action ('Generate an image from a text prompt') and resource (text-to-image, with optional reference images for image-to-image editing), which clearly exceeds a tautology. It differentiates from imageat_generate_video, but the overlap with imageat_edit_image is not explicitly addressed.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as imageat_edit_image. It does not state conditions, exclusions, or the preferred tool for pure editing vs. generation with reference images, leaving the choice to inference.

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

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 mentions the two input modes and the returned CDN URL, but it does not disclose important behaviors like whether generation is asynchronous, how long it might take, whether costs or rate limits apply, or what happens if generation fails. For a generative tool with no safety annotations, this is a notable gap.

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 sentences with no wasted words. The core capability and return type are front-loaded, and the text-to-video/image-to-video distinction is packed efficiently.

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 that this tool has 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse to be fully actionable. It conveys the basic function and output but omits guidance on model choice, duration, resolution, aspect ratio, audio generation, and negative prompts, all of which would help an agent select values correctly.

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 input schema already provides descriptions for 5 of 8 parameters, and the description adds high-level context that prompt and imageUrl correspond to text-to-video and image-to-video modes. However, parameters like aspectRatio, generateAudio, and negativePrompt have empty descriptions in the schema and are not addressed by the tool description. The description helps but does not fully compensate for those gaps.

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 identifies the tool as generating a video using either a text prompt or a starting image, and explicitly states the output is a CDN mp4 URL. It differentiates from the sibling tools by naming the video-specific capability, making confusion with image editing or image generation unlikely.

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 makes it clear this tool is for video generation, which implies when to use it, but it does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives or state when not to use it. No usage context such as model selection guidance or provider preferences is provided, leaving the decision to the agent's inference.

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