text_to_image

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool creates a task and returns outputs, but does not mention destructive potential, authentication needs, rate limits, or scheduling behavior. The description lacks critical behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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 two sentences, concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. No wasted words, but could be more structured given the tool's complexity (13 parameters).

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 tool has 13 parameters and no output schema. The description does not explain editing mode (source_image_url), safety_tolerance, translation, expansion, or how to use polling parameters. It fails to provide sufficient context for correct usage, especially given the complexity.

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 85%, and the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds only 'English only' for prompt and a mention of return fields, but does not provide additional meaning beyond what the schema offers. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 it creates a Flux Kontext text-to-image task and returns task id, status, and output URLs. This verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like login, get_task, and check_pricing.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The sibling tools are very different, so context is clear, but the description does not provide any usage scenarios or exclusions.

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