text_to_image

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions creating a task and returns, but does not disclose if the operation is destructive, read-only, or has side effects. It also lacks information on authentication, rate limits, or error handling.

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 very concise, consisting of two sentences that convey the purpose and return value. No extraneous information. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points) for clarity, but overall it is efficient.

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 has 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain how parameters interact, what a 'task' entails, or any constraints. It leaves the agent with limited understanding of the tool's full behavior.

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 only 33% (2 of 6 parameters have descriptions). The tool description does not add any meaning beyond the schema; it merely restates the overall function. For parameters like aspect_ratio, output_resolution, and timeout_ms, the description provides no 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 Wan task for text-to-image generation and returns a task id, status, and output URLs. The name and description sufficiently distinguish it from sibling tools like text_to_video, though it does not explicitly differentiate.

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. The description does not mention prerequisites, when it is appropriate, or when to avoid using it. With siblings like text_to_video and image_to_video, explicit usage context is missing.

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