markitup_regen

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

Without annotations, the description discloses important behaviors: credit cost (if charge_credit=true), the need to reuse previous text_analysis to maintain visual consistency, and the use of variation_index to select a slot. This goes beyond simple purpose.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose and logically organized. Each sentence adds distinct value (prerequisite, cost, required arguments, slot selection). No redundant or irrelevant information.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description covers key usage aspects: required inputs from previous call, variation selection, credit cost. It does not explain the return format, but the regeneration context is adequately described for an agent to infer the output.

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 coverage is 78%, and the description adds context by explaining the relationship between text_analysis and the previous generate's structuredContent.text, and clarifying variation_index as a slot. This provides meaning beyond the schema definitions.

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 specific verb 'Regenerate' and clearly identifies the resource as 'a single variation from a previous markitup_generate call'. It distinguishes from sibling tools (e.g., markitup_generate) by referencing the prerequisite generation call.

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 provides instructions on when to use the tool (after a markitup_generate call) and how to pass required data (source image, text_analysis object, variation_index). It also mentions credit cost. Missing explicit when-not-to-use scenarios, but context is clear.

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