recraft_compare_styles

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose the main output behavior — creating individual images and an optional comparison grid — but it omits other behavioral details like writing files to output_dir, consuming credits, or what happens when grid=false. This is adequate but not rich.

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?

Two concise sentences with no wasted words. The core operation is front-loaded, the optional grid behavior is stated second, and the use case is a short, useful closing note.

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?

The schema is thorough, so the description only needs to supply selection-level context. It does that well by clarifying the same-prompt-across-styles behavior, the individual images plus grid output, and the intended decision-making use case. A small gap is that it does not explicitly state the number of images or that files are saved to output_dir, though the schema covers the latter.

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 baseline is 3 and the schema already documents every parameter. The description only adds high-level semantic alignment ('same prompt' maps to prompt, 'multiple styles' maps to styles, 'comparison grid' maps to grid) without adding details beyond the schema.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Generate') and resource ('the same prompt in multiple styles'), clearly establishing the tool's role as a style comparison generator. It further distinguishes itself from sibling tools like recraft_generate_image or recraft_batch_generate by highlighting 'side-by-side comparison' and the optional comparison grid.

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 phrase 'Great for choosing the best style for your project' implies a use case, but the description does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as recraft_generate_image or recraft_explore. There are no exclusions or 'use X instead' guidance, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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