recraft_variate_image

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only says the results are 'similar but different versions,' and omits details such as whether the original image is preserved, how many results may be returned, output/response behavior, or any cost or randomness 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?

Two short sentences with no filler and the action front-loaded. The second sentence adds a useful clarification that the outputs are similar but distinct, so 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?

Given six parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and a 23-tool sibling suite, this description is too thin to support reliable selection and invocation. It lacks guidance on response contents, output count behavior, and how it differs from recraft_image_to_image or recraft_batch_generate.

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 applies. The description adds no meaningful parameter-level detail beyond 'existing image' mapping to file_path; the size, n, image_format, and response_format semantics are already covered by the schema.

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 action ('Generate variations of an existing image') and clarifies the output as 'similar but different versions.' It is clear about the resource and result, but it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from nearby siblings such as recraft_image_to_image or recraft_explore_similar.

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?

No guidance is provided for when to use this tool versus alternatives like batch_generate, image_to_image, or explore_similar. The description only restates the operation, leaving selection among sibling tools to inference.

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