generate-image

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions automatic detection and URL mapping for studio templates, which adds some context, but fails to cover critical aspects like authentication requirements (implied by apiKey parameter), rate limits, error handling, or what the tool returns (only hints at responseType). For a tool with 6 parameters and no annotations, this is insufficient.

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 appropriately concise with two sentences that are front-loaded with the core functionality. Each sentence adds value: the first states the purpose and auto-detection, the second details studio-specific features. There's no redundant information, though it could be slightly more structured.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the output (e.g., what a 'url' response contains), error conditions, or how modifications interact with template types. For a generative tool with multiple parameters and siblings, more context is needed to guide effective 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 description coverage is 100%, providing detailed documentation for all parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only reiterating that templateId auto-detects library/studio and that modifications work for both types. It doesn't explain parameter interactions or provide usage examples, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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's purpose: 'Generate an image from an Orshot template' with the specific action of automatic detection between library and studio templates. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'generate-image-from-library' and 'generate-image-from-studio' by handling both types automatically, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings.

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 when to use this tool by mentioning it 'automatically detects library vs studio template', suggesting it's a general-purpose alternative to the more specific sibling tools. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this over 'generate-image-from-library' or 'generate-image-from-studio', or any prerequisites like authentication needs.

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