Create a NexusAPI generation task

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the task is paid, asynchronous, and requires user approval due to potential billing. This goes beyond simply restating the title and provides important operational context, though it does not mention response format or failure modes.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two sentences. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second adds crucial usage guidance. Every word earns its place, and the structure is clear and front-loaded.

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 tool's complexity (asynchronous, billable, nested parameters) and lack of output schema, the description provides essential context by warning about billing and instructing the schema-first workflow. However, it omits details about the return value or how to poll for results, leaving some gaps that are partially mitigated by the sibling tool nexusapi_get_task.

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 input schema already thoroughly documents all parameters (prompt, model_name, parameters). The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, thus aligning with the baseline score of 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 clearly states the tool creates a paid asynchronous generation task, which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like nexusapi_list_models, nexusapi_get_model_schema, and nexusapi_get_task by focusing on the generation task creation.

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 explicit usage guidance by instructing to call nexusapi_get_model_schema first and to ask for user approval due to billable generation. This gives clear context on when to use the tool and the necessary prerequisite steps, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use.

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