Layerize a design

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does reasonably well: it explains what the operation produces (text blocks with matched fonts/sizes/colours, a text-free base image that is saved), that font matching is optional, and that ideogram_quote can price the call beforehand. It omits anything about credits/billing side effects, failure modes, or the async wait_s job model that the schema hints at.

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?

Two dense sentences, front-loaded with the transformation and its outputs, then the optional-input and pricing notes. Nothing is wasted, though the second sentence is packed tightly enough that the font and quote hints feel appended rather than integrated.

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 9-parameter, zero-required tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description fills the most important gap by describing the return shape (text blocks plus a saved base image), which the schema cannot convey. It still leaves the async generation_id/wait_s flow and the relationship to sibling tools unexplained, so it is not fully self-sufficient.

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% across all 9 parameters, so the schema already documents seed, image, model, prompt, private, wait_s, inline_images, font_candidate_files and image_asset_identifier. The description only echoes the font-file parameter and adds nothing on the remaining eight, 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 states a specific verb+resource (turn a flat image into an editable design) and details the exact outputs: positioned text blocks with matched fonts, sizes and colours plus a saved text-free base image. That is far more than a restatement of the name. It stops short of distinguishing this tool from the similarly named sibling ideogram_layerize_logos, which an agent would have to resolve on its own.

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?

Usage is only implied: the description notes font files are optional and points at ideogram_quote for pricing before a call, which hints at a paid, opt-in workflow. It never says when to choose this over ideogram_layerize_logos, ideogram_edit or the other edit-family siblings, and gives no prerequisites or exclusions.

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