ideogram_reframe

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only says the operation is outpainting; it does not state whether the original file is modified, what kind of result is returned, whether output is saved to disk, or how the reframed image is delivered.

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 short sentences, no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. The example target resolutions are helpful and directly relevant to the required resolution parameter.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what the tool returns or produces after outpainting, but it does not. It also omits behavior around num_images and rendering_speed, leaving an agent without enough context to fully understand the call's result.

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% and each parameter already has a description, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only an example resolution format, which the schema's enum already covers, and provides no additional meaning for seed, num_images, or rendering_speed.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Extend an image to a new resolution via outpainting.' This clearly communicates the core operation and distinguishes it from siblings like upscale, edit, and remix by naming the outpainting technique.

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?

The description implies usage context through 'extend an image to a new resolution via outpainting,' but it never explicitly says when to choose this over siblings or when not to use it. No alternatives are named, leaving the agent to infer selection from the verb alone.

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