inpaint

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 states the action ('inpaint') but doesn't explain what inpainting entails (e.g., filling masked areas based on a prompt), potential side effects, permissions needed, or output behavior. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that modifies images.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste—'Inpaint an image using a mask'—making it highly concise and front-loaded. Every word earns its place by conveying the core action and resource.

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 of an image inpainting tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what inpainting does, how the output is handled, or any behavioral traits, leaving the agent with incomplete context for proper tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters (image, prompt, mask_shape, position, output) with descriptions and enums. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how the prompt influences inpainting or how mask shape/position interact. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Inpaint an image using a mask' clearly states the action (inpaint) and resource (image with mask), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'img2img' or 'generate', which might also involve image manipulation, so it's not a perfect 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'img2img' or 'generate'. It lacks context about specific use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the name alone.

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