recraft_inpaint

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavioral effect: white mask areas are regenerated while black areas are preserved, which effectively indicates what gets replaced. The model restriction is also transparent, though other behavioral details like output format or number of variations are left to the schema.

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 sentences with no filler. It front-loads the operation and immediately follows with the most important behavioral constraint (mask semantics) and model restriction.

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 the rich 100%-covered schema, the description is reasonably complete for a tool of this complexity. It provides the core semantics and model constraint, and the schema fills in the parameter details. It could go further by guiding selection versus sibling tools, but nothing essential is missing for invocation.

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 does not add much beyond what the schema provides, though it restates the mask_path behavior in plain language, which is mildly helpful.

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 that the tool edits specific image regions using a mask, and it usefully explains the mask color semantics (white regenerated, black preserved). It does not explicitly name the closest sibling such as recraft_erase_region, but the operation is specific and understandable.

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 intended use case: region-specific editing via a mask, with model restriction to V3/V3 Vector only. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings like recraft_erase_region or recraft_outpaint, nor does it give exclusions or alternatives.

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