create_animal

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it explains that appearance values are hardcoded defaults that can be overridden in scene (for removable gear and clothing), and that force=true triggers a re-design. It omits persistence/side-effect details (does this register a reusable subject that list_subjects/subject_image later reference?) and does not mention deterministic seeding behavior.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then an efficient bulleted list of required appearance fields, then the override rule and the force workflow. Every line contributes, though the removable-gear/clothing aside adds slight length.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the appearance/override/force semantics are well covered. Gaps remain around the image-generation parameters and whether the created animal becomes a reusable referenced subject, but the core workflow is complete.

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 must compensate. It thoroughly explains 'appearance' (exactly which attributes to specify) and 'force', but leaves seed, width, height, guidance_scale, and num_inference_steps entirely undocumented in both schema and description. Partial compensation warrants a 3.

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 a specific action (create/lock the design of an animal, mount, or spirit beast) and the concrete outcome (every subsequent image shows the same creature), which is a distinct purpose from the animal/character/object siblings. An agent can tell this is the animal-design tool without opening the schema.

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 clear workflow guidance: design first, inspect the resulting design image, and rerun with force=true if unsatisfied. It also implicitly scopes out scene/action content ('不要写场景和动作'). It stops short of explicitly naming which sibling to use for scenes or characters, so not a full 5.

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