remix_image

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the tool is task-based and returns task id, status, and output URLs, but does not disclose destructive potential, rate limits, or behavioral traits like whether it overwrites or requires permissions. The wait parameter is not explained in the description.

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 (two sentences) and front-loaded with the action, but it is too brief to be effective. Missing details make it less valuable despite its brevity.

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 8 parameters (0 required), low schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should provide more context. It only gives high-level purpose, leaving many user questions unanswered about usage and parameters.

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 low (25%), and the tool description adds no meaning to parameters. Only 'wait' and 'model' have descriptions in the schema; the description does not explain 'aspect_ratio', 'output_format', 'output_resolution', or 'source_image_urls'. The overall description lacks any parameter guidance.

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 creates a remix image task on RunAPI, specifying the action and returning a task id, status, and output URLs. This distinguishes it from siblings like text_to_image (text-based generation) and get_task (task retrieval).

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For instance, it does not explain when to use remix vs text_to_image, or any prerequisites like needing an existing image URL. The description only states what it does, not the context.

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