Generate images and wait for them

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

Beyond the annotations, the description reveals important blocking behavior: fast-mode jobs block for 30-60 seconds and relax mode can take minutes. It also discloses that the call 'Costs GPU time from the Midjourney plan and cannot be refunded' and requires confirm: true. This is precisely the kind of consequence disclosure that annotations alone do not provide.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by wait behavior, save guidance, and cost/confirmation requirements. Every sentence carries useful information; there is no fluff or repetition of schema details.

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 complex tool with 32 parameters and no output schema, the description supplies the essential tool-level context: what it returns (direct image URLs), how long it blocks, when to choose a sibling tool, when save is appropriate, and why confirmation is mandatory. The schema handles parameter-level detail, so the description is complete for selection and 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?

The input schema already covers all 32 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds valuable cross-parameter semantics: save true returns local paths and is intended for downstream use, timeout_ms relates to waiting expectations, and confirm must be true because the operation spends non-refundable GPU time. These additions go beyond the schema descriptions without repeating them.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Generate images from a prompt, wait for the job to finish, and return the results with direct image URLs.' It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by saying it does the whole job 'rather than handing back an id to poll,' making the tool's role immediately clear relative to submit_imagine and wait_for_job.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'This is the tool to reach for by default' and 'use submit_imagine instead if you do not want to wait.' It also adds contextual advice for the save parameter: use it 'when the images are going to be used rather than looked at.' This is clear, actionable routing with alternatives.

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