recraft_image_to_image

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that strength controls preservation of the original and that only V3/V3 Vector models are supported. However, it does not disclose output behavior, whether the original file is modified, side effects, or any operational limits.

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 sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the strength behavior and model restriction are stated efficiently. Every 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?

This is a complex tool with 11 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers only the basic purpose, strength, and model restriction. It lacks output expectations, sibling differentiation, and usage context, leaving too much for the agent to infer.

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 schema already documents all parameters. The description adds some framing for strength and model constraints, but mostly restates information already present in the schema rather than adding new parameter-level meaning.

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 states a specific verb and resource: transform an existing image with a text prompt. This clearly distinguishes it from text-to-image generation. However, it does not explicitly differentiate it from closely related siblings like recraft_variate_image or recraft_inpaint.

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 implies the tool is for editing existing images via prompt, and it adds a model restriction ('V3/V3 Vector models only'). But it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it.

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