generate_image

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description does not contradict these. It adds useful behavioral context about provider support and default selection, but does not disclose potential side effects like file overwriting, output location, or cost implications, which would be relevant given the destructive hint.

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 exactly two sentences, front-loaded with 'Generate an image.' The second sentence adds key provider information. There is zero waste, and it is easy to scan.

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?

Despite having 11 parameters and no output schema, the description is very brief. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., an image URL or file path), whether it saves files, or any provider-specific nuances beyond defaults. Given the tool's complexity, the description is insufficient for the agent to fully understand invocation results and side effects.

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 schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add additional parameter-level meaning beyond what is already in the schema; it only restates the provider default, which is also in the provider parameter description.

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 'Generate an image,' a specific verb+resource pair that clearly identifies the tool's function. It also distinguishes it from sibling tools like video_generation and speech_generation by focusing solely on image generation, and the mention of three supported providers adds specificity.

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 clear context about when to use the tool (when generating images) and describes provider selection behavior (UGCMind default when configured). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare alternatives, such as if another tool would be better for a different image-related task.

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