recraft_enhance_prompt

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It transparently explains the transformation: the prompt is expanded with visual context, style cues, and composition details, and the result is meant for downstream generation. It stops short of stating the exact return format, but the description's 'use the result' phrasing makes the delivered value clear.

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 two concise sentences with no filler. The core transformation is front-loaded, followed by actionable downstream guidance. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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?

For a simple one-parameter, non-destructive prompt-enhancement tool, the description is largely complete: it states inputs, transformation, and intended use of the output. It does not explicitly define the output format or include an example, but the tool's simplicity and the clear 'use the result' guidance keep the gap minor.

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 input schema already fully describes the only parameter ('prompt', 'original prompt to enhance', max 2000 chars), so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds only the qualifier 'short', which is a minor clarification. This is the appropriate baseline for a fully documented single-parameter 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?

The description clearly states a specific verb ('expand') and resource ('a short prompt'), and describes the outcome as a richer, more detailed description with visual context, style cues, and composition details. This distinguishes it from all sibling image-generation/manipulation tools, which operate on images rather than prompts.

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 a clear usage context: use it when you have a short prompt and want a more vivid prompt for any generation tool. It also tells the agent that the result should be fed into a generation tool rather than consumed directly. It does not explicitly discuss when not to use it or mention alternatives, but this is less critical since no sibling tool performs the same prompt-enhancement function.

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