aaddyy_girlfriend_designer

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it only discloses the credit cost (~10 credits). It omits whether the result is an image, whether NSFW content is filtered, whether the call is synchronous, and how the nsfwFilter/nsfw_tease options interact.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that states the action, the customization scope, and the cost. No filler, though the trailing credit note is the only extra payload.

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 19-parameter generation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is thin: it doesn't clarify return format, cost mechanics, or content-policy interactions (nsfwFilter vs nsfw_tease). An agent can call it, but with significant guesswork.

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 0% across 19 parameters, so the description must compensate, but it only says 'customize every detail' without explaining any parameter. The enum values are largely self-descriptive, which limits the damage, but no meaning is added beyond 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?

States a specific verb (design/generate) and resource (girlfriend character), and clarifies the scope is full customization from appearance to style. It is distinguishable from the sibling aaddyy_boyfriend_designer by the explicit 'girlfriend' framing, though it doesn't actively call out the contrast.

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 on when to use this versus the many sibling image tools (image_generator, headshot_generator, ghibli_generator, boyfriend_designer). The agent must infer the niche from the name alone; there are no exclusions or alternative-routing hints.

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