Submit Image Generation Task

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

The description discloses the key async behavior: 'Returns immediately - images will appear in the Web App' and 'This tool returns immediately after submitting the task.' It also provides the specific gallery URL for viewing generated images. These are behavioral traits not captured by the annotations (readOnlyHint false, openWorldHint true), and they're critical for correct agent invocation.

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 well-structured with a bolded usage note, an 'Args' section, and examples. It is front-loaded with the most important facts (async return, usage on Claude.ai). Minor redundancy exists: 'Returns immediately' appears twice in nearly identical wording, and some param details duplicate the schema, but overall it remains readable and scannable.

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?

For a 6-parameter async submission tool, the description covers the key aspects: what it does, when to use it, async behavior, where to view results, modes, and examples. It doesn't explicitly mention checking status via seedream_status or what the response object contains, but the output schema exists to cover return values, and the web app URL addresses result retrieval. Complete enough for correct usage.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantic detail beyond the schema: mode 'image' means 'editing with 1 ref image' and 'multi' means 'blending 2+ images'; '4K-9:16' is annotated as '2304x4096'; strength is described as 'Reference strength 0-1 for image/multi modes (default: 0.7)'. This gives the agent a clearer mental model of parameter relationships.

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 verb and resource: 'Submit an image generation task.' It immediately distinguishes itself from the regular seedream_generate tool by noting it returns immediately, so the agent knows this is the async-submit counterpart. The example modes (text/image/multi) also clarify the range of tasks it covers.

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 explicitly says 'USE THIS TOOL ON CLAUDE.AI' and explains why: 'The regular seedream_generate tool times out on Claude.ai.' This gives a direct when-to-use rule, a when-not-to-use rule, and names the alternative tool. It also tells the user where to view results after submission, which is practical usage guidance.

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