reframe_image

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

The description only states that it returns a task id, status, and output URLs, but does not disclose that this creates an asynchronous task that may require polling (despite the wait parameter) or that it may incur costs. With no annotations, the side effects are unclear.

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 sentence with no filler, making it concise. However, it is under-specified, and the minor grammar issue ('a Ideogram') slightly detracts from professionalism.

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?

With 11 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is too sparse. It does not explain the relationship to get_task for polling, the meaning of style/aspect_ratio/rendering_speed, or the expected response structure, making it insufficient for correct invocation.

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?

The input schema has only 18% parameter description coverage, and the description adds no parameter details. The required source_image_url is not described in either the schema or the description, leaving a critical parameter ambiguous.

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 the verb 'Create' with a specific resource ('Ideogram V3 task on RunAPI') and clarifies the operation with '(reframe image)'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like edit_image, remix_image, and text_to_image.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as remix_image or text_to_image. Prerequisites like authentication or the asynchronous task workflow are not mentioned.

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