ideogram_replace_background

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does state one behavioral trait—preserving the foreground subject—which is helpful, but it does not disclose the output format, whether the input file is modified or a new file is generated, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a mutation tool with no schema description of return values.

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 description is a single, front-loaded sentence that states the core action and the prompt requirement with no filler. It is appropriately concise.

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 tool with six parameters and no output schema, the description is quite sparse. It does not mention that the output is an image, how many variations are produced by default, or the effect of optional parameters like 'num_images' or 'rendering_speed'. These are present in the schema but the description does not tie them together for the agent.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's instruction to 'Describe the new background in the prompt' essentially repeats the schema's definition of the 'prompt' parameter, adding no new insight. No other parameters are mentioned in the description.

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 uses a specific verb ('Replace'), names the resource ('background of an image'), and adds a distinguishing constraint ('preserving the foreground subject'). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like ideogram_generate or ideogram_describe, so an agent can select it correctly.

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 only states what the tool does and how to use the prompt, but does not provide any explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like ideogram_edit or ideogram_reframe. Usage is only implied by the tool's name and purpose, with no exclusion or alternative routing.

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