Submit image generation

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so safety is partly covered. The description adds genuinely new context: queue submissions return a receipt only, a synchronous timeout can leave an unknown paid outcome, and there is no retry or polling. This paid-outcome and no-retry disclosure is valuable beyond the annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and kept to a few dense sentences with no filler. The opening clause 'after current native input-schema validation' is somewhat opaque, but overall it is tight and earns its length.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and nested parameters, the description covers the key unknowns: paid cost, receipt-only returns for queued work, unknown outcome on synchronous timeout, and no retry/polling. Remaining gaps (auth/profile requirements, what a receipt contains) are minor.

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%, so the schema already documents all six parameters including model_id, input, confirm, and lifecycle. The description reinforces the exactness requirement for model_id/input but adds no syntax, format, or defaulting detail beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 name and title establish image generation, and the description frames it as a 'confirmed paid model request' requiring exact model_id/input. However, the phrasing is jargon-heavy and it lumps 'image/video commands' together, giving no explicit differentiation from close siblings like generate_video, run_model, or submit_job.

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?

Implies the tool should only be invoked after confirmation ('Confirmed paid model request'), which is a real precondition. It does not, however, name alternatives or say when to prefer this over submit_job, run_model, or submit_generation_batch, leaving routing to inference.

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