recraft_outpaint

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the output effect and model compatibility, but does not disclose side effects, whether the original file is modified, output handling, credit costs, or failure modes. For a generation tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 sentences, each earning its place: the first states the operation, the second differentiates from the sibling, and the third lists the key control parameters. The content is front-loaded and contains no filler or redundancy.

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?

The schema is rich (16 params, nested controls), but with no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide more invocation context, such as the required file_path/prompt and how results are returned. The differentiator addresses only one of many image-editing siblings, and no guidance is given for other alternatives like inpaint or erase_region. It is adequate for selection but not fully complete 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 every parameter is already documented. The description's summary of 'target size, per-side expand amounts, and/or a zoom-out percentage' restates the parameter groups without adding new semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides. 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 states a specific verb ('Extend'), a resource ('an image beyond its original boundaries'), and a clear mechanism ('AI-generated content (canvas expansion)'). It explicitly contrasts with recraft_generate_background, which 'only fills masked areas within the existing canvas', making the tool's unique scope unmistakable.

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 explicitly names the closest alternative (recraft_generate_background) and explains the difference, telling an agent when not to use this tool. It also adds a compatibility precondition ('V3/V3 Vector only') and hints at the three control modes (size, expand amounts, zoom-out percentage), which helps the agent select between parameter groups.

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