enhance_prompt

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

The description adds real context beyond readOnlyHint=true: the call is free and needs no API key, so the agent knows there is no auth setup or cost. However, there is no output schema and the description never says what comes back (an enhanced prompt string, a list of suggestions, etc.) or whether the transformation is deterministic.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core transformation, then trigger, then a workflow tip and cost note. Nothing is wasted, though the trailing 'free, no API key needed' is detached from the workflow guidance it could have been grouped with.

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 two-parameter, read-only transform with no output schema, the definition covers purpose, trigger, and cost well enough to invoke it confidently. The main residual gap is return-value shape, which the absent output schema would otherwise have covered.

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% and the style enum is documented in unusual depth in the schema, including model-specific guidance. The description only mirrors the prompt example ('a cat in a garden') and adds nothing about the style parameter, so baseline 3 is correct.

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?

A specific verb+resource: it transforms a brief idea into a detailed image-generation prompt, which is clearly different from image-producing siblings like generate_image. It does not name any sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is inferential rather than stated.

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?

It gives an explicit trigger ('when the user provides a brief description ... and needs a detailed, high-quality prompt') with an example input. It also suggests a companion step ('combine with gallery inspiration'), but it never says when NOT to use it or which tool to use instead for a different need.

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