Ghost mannequin

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: results are written to the output directory, long jobs return a generation_id for ideogram_generation, and the schema further documents that jobs are never resubmitted or billed twice, plus the private-feed default. Missing are auth/permission requirements and any rate-limit or failure behavior.

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 core operation is front-loaded in the first clause, and the second sentence carries all the lifecycle/routing facts efficiently. The first sentence is a dense, semicolon-heavy run-on, but nothing is redundant given how much ground it covers.

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 17-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the transformation, input forms, output destination and async result handling, which is most of what an agent needs. It leaves the many per-angle parameters to the 100%-covered schema, so nothing critical is silently missing.

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 explains view, metadata, instruction, garment_images and the per-angle image/asset pairs. The description adds only framing context (view options, factual product metadata, multi-angle reconstruction) rather than new syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific transformation — garment photos turned into a ghost mannequin render on a clean white studio background — plus the supported input forms and requested view. It clearly distinguishes this from siblings like ideogram_sketch_to_render and ideogram_model_pose_variants, which perform different transformations.

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 routes the agent to ideogram_quote for pricing and ideogram_generation for polling a long job, and implicitly scopes usage to garment-photo inputs. It never states when to prefer this over near-neighbours such as sketch_to_render or precise_edit, so exclusions are weak, but the alternatives it does name are explicit.

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