generate_with_style

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses auto-padding to nearest bucket and variant counts based on size. It also states 'SQUARE images only.' However, it does not clarify what happens if non-square input is given or the exact output structure.

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 concise with two sentences and a variant mapping line. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and usage guideline, without unnecessary details.

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?

The description covers inputs and key behaviors but lacks output specification. Without an output schema, the agent may not know what the result contains (e.g., single image or list of variants). Complexity is moderate, but more detail on return value would improve completeness.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds some behavioral context (auto-padding, variants) but does not elaborate on individual parameter meanings beyond what schema already provides.

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 clearly states the tool generates pixel art matching a specific visual style from style reference images. This verb+resource combo distinguishes it from sibling tools like general image generation or style-transfer tools.

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 explicitly says 'Use this when you need consistent style across multiple assets.' It also constrains usage to square images of 16-512px. However, it does not mention when not to use or list alternatives.

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