suggest_enhancement_plan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the key behavioral traits: deterministic and non-destructive. It also scopes the operation to a single image, implying a read-only planning step. It does not describe the plan's structure, but that is more a completeness gap than a behavioral one.

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 sentence that front-loads the action, scopes the input, and notes the two most important behavioral traits. There is no filler or repetition of schema information.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, this one-sentence description leaves the returned enhancement plan undefined and gives no guidance on how goals, max_colors, or seed affect the result. It is enough for an agent to make a rough call, but not enough to choose parameter values confidently or validate the output.

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 0%, so the description needed to explain seed, goals, filename, and max_colors. It only weakly hints at filename via 'one image' and at seed via 'deterministic'; goals and max_colors are left entirely to the reader. The names and enum values in the schema help, but the description adds no real parameter guidance.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Inspect one image and return... an enhancement plan.' The phrases 'non-destructive' and 'for review' clearly separate it from sibling tools like apply_enhancement_plan and apply_enhancement_batch, so an agent can tell planning from application.

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 establishes a clear use context: generate a reviewable plan rather than apply changes. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but 'for an agent or human review' plus sibling names such as apply_enhancement_plan make the intended workflow reasonably clear.

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