inpaint

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. It reveals the engine, legacy status, and maximum size, but omits side effects, return format, authentication needs, or error behavior. Adequate but not thorough.

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?

Three focused sentences without filler, efficiently conveying purpose, limits, and when to use alternatives.

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?

Despite 19 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal. It lacks details on return values, failure modes, parameter interactions, or comprehensive behavior, making it incomplete for fully autonomous use.

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%, baseline 3. The description adds value by linking 'style controls' and 'oblique projection' to parameter groups (e.g., shading, outline, isometric, oblique_projection), providing context beyond the schema.

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 identifies the tool as legacy inpainting using the Bitforge engine and distinguishes it from the preferred inpaint_v3 by noting size limits and Bitforge-specific capabilities.

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?

Explicitly states when to prefer inpaint_v3 (for better quality and up to 512px) and when to use this tool (when Bitforge-specific params like style controls or oblique projection are needed).

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