Ad localizer

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and largely meets it: it discloses that results are written to an output directory, that long jobs return a generation_id rather than blocking, and that quoting is available before calling. It omits any note on permissions or cost of the num_images outputs, which the schema covers only in passing.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for a multi-parameter tool, though the semicolon-chained phrasing packs several distinct ideas into single sentences and is dense to parse. Every clause is informative, so little is wasted.

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 an 11-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a nested asset identifier, the description covers purpose, accepted inputs, output destination, and the async follow-up path. It is close to complete, missing only explicit required-parameter guidance and any auth/permission note.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning by explaining the per-language semantics of `language`, the accepted sources for `image` (local file, https URL, Ideogram asset), and the line-by-line `original => replacement` shape of exact_copy. It goes modestly beyond the schema rather than merely echoing it.

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 definition states a specific verb and resource — translate an ad's copy into one target language — plus a precise scope (one language per request). It clearly separates this from siblings like ideogram_ad_resizer and ideogram_ad_variations by naming exactly what is preserved (layout, logos, brand type, product).

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?

It gives concrete usage context: one request per language, Arabic renders right-to-left, exact_copy pins pre-approved wordings, and ideogram_quote prices a call first. It routes to ideogram_generation for long-running jobs, but never states when to prefer this over sibling ad tools such as ad_variations, so it stops short of explicit alternatives.

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