recraft_generate_asset

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does reveal the key behavior: it does not just generate, it downloads, may remove the background, and writes to a file. It is transparent about the side effect of saving to output_path, though it doesn't mention overwrite behavior, return value, or credit/cost implications.

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?

One compact sentence front-loads the operation sequence and then gives concrete use cases. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 no output schema and 23 siblings, the description covers the core selection and invocation context: what the pipeline does, the final save destination, and representative use cases. It does not specify return values or behavior when the output file already exists, but these are secondary for selecting and calling the tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so all seven parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds only the 'remove background' toggle context, which is already reflected in remove_bg's schema default; no substantial new parameter meaning is provided, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names a concrete multi-step operation (generate → download → optionally remove background → save to file) and the target domain (game assets, icons, UI elements). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like recraft_generate_image (generation only) and recraft_download_image (download only), so an agent can select it 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?

The phrase 'Full asset pipeline' plus 'Perfect for game assets, icons, and UI elements' gives clear context for choosing this tool over single-step siblings. It does not explicitly say when not to use it or name alternatives, so it's one notch below the most explicit guidance.

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