Call any served Ideogram operation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose real behavior: the request is validated against the operation's own schema before anything is sent, and dry_run prices instead of executing. It stops short of stating auth requirements, that this path bypasses curated safety rails, or what happens on validation failure — meaningful gaps for a tool that can dispatch arbitrary (potentially mutating) operations.

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 dense paragraph, front-loaded with the routing condition before the mechanics, and every clause carries information. Slightly compressed — the params/files/validation/dry_run points run together — but nothing 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?

No output schema exists and the description does not describe return shape, but for a generic dispatcher whose response depends on the target operation that omission is understandable. Invocation mechanics, pre-flight validation and the dry_run alternative are all covered; error behavior and result-retrieval expectations are the main unaddressed items.

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 schema already documents operation, params, files, wait_s, dry_run, inline_images and allow_undocumented. The description explains the params split into path/query/headers/body and the files path-or-URL mapping, but this largely restates what the schema's own descriptions say. 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?

States a precise verb and resource — call an Ideogram operation by id — and immediately positions it as the escape hatch ('when no curated tool covers it') against the 35+ curated siblings. An agent can tell instantly that this is the generic fallback, not a competing generator.

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?

Gives explicit selection criteria: use when no curated tool covers the case, for an undocumented model (allow_undocumented), or when the call needs webhook_url / target_collection_id. It also names where the operation id comes from (ideogram_operations), so the agent knows the prerequisite call.

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