recraft_generate_sized

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the transparency burden; it discloses a non-obvious processing pipeline ('generates at API-compatible size, then resizes with Lanczos3 downsampling'). It does not discuss upscaling behavior, output format, or credential/credit effects, but the core behavioral trait is usefully exposed.

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?

Three concise sentences with no wasted words; the differentiator (any target size) is front-loaded, the mechanism follows in the second sentence, and the ideal use cases close it out. Each sentence earns its place.

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 10-parameter tool with fully documented schema properties, the description covers purpose, appropriate use, and the key resizing behavior. The main missing piece is explicit guidance on when to choose this over recraft_generate_image and what the final saved output/return looks like, which is a minor gap given output_path is required.

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 width, height, prompt, fit, etc. The description adds usage-oriented context for width/height (small sizes) but does not add new semantic detail to individual parameters.

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?

States a specific verb ('Generate') and resource ('image') with a unique scope ('any target size, including small sizes like 64x64') that distinguishes it from generic generation siblings. The phrase 'Perfect for game sprites, icons, and UI elements' reinforces the intended output category.

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?

Provides clear use context (game sprites, icons, UI elements, small sizes), so an agent can infer when this tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly name excluded cases or alternative tools, so it stops short of full when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance.

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