Magic prompt (Ideogram 4.0)

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses non-effects (no generation, no dry run, no price quote) and states what is returned (JSON prompt plus aspect ratio), but is silent on whether the call itself consumes credits, what auth is required, or latency behavior for a rewrite operation.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the what-it-does clause comes first and the scope caveats follow. The parenthetical 'no price quote (the v1 operation offers no dry run)' is slightly tangled but still earns its place as a safeguard against misuse.

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 or annotations exist, so the description must stand alone; it does state the return payload (structured JSON prompt and aspect ratio) and the absence of side effects. The gap is that inline_images' base64/file-path return behavior, a real client-facing consequence, is left entirely to the schema.

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 baseline is 3. The description reinforces the AUTO behavior ('the aspect ratio the model picks for it, or the one you pin'), which the schema already documents, and never mentions inline_images, so it adds little beyond the structured fields.

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 specific verb and resource ('Rewrite a natural-language prompt into an Ideogram 4.0 structured JSON prompt') plus the secondary output (chosen/pinned aspect ratio). It also explicitly separates itself from the generate family with 'Nothing is generated', so an agent can distinguish it from siblings like ideogram_generate without opening any schema.

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 a clear boundary condition: 'Nothing is generated; no price quote (the v1 operation offers no dry run)', which tells an agent not to reach for this when it wants an image or a cost preflight. It stops short of naming the alternatives (ideogram_generate, ideogram_quote) explicitly, so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not routing.

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