generate-image

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does mention the chat UUID requirement and the return of metadata, but it omits important traits such as side effects on the chat, cost implications, asynchronicity, or whether any preconditions like authentication are needed. This is a significant gap for a generation tool.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action in the first sentence. Every word adds value, with no redundant or filler content.

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 the tool's complexity (9 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description is minimal and lacks operational context. It does not explain prerequisites (e.g., authentication, balance), whether generation is synchronous, how the feature interacts with chat workflows, or what the returned metadata looks like. The schema covers parameter details, but the description is not complete enough for an agent to fully understand the tool's role.

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 100% and each parameter (n, ai_name, quality, model_settings, etc.) is already well described in the schema. The description adds little beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline expectation without needing to compensate.

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 generates one or more images on syntx.ai using a design service (e.g., sora-images, flux), which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like generate-audio or generate-video, and mentions the key requirement of a chat UUID.

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 implies usage for image generation and provides context about requiring a chat UUID and returning generation metadata. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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