Generate images with Image5

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

Annotations already declare openWorldHint=true and non-idempotent, non-destructive, non-readOnly. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: it consumes Firefly Services credits (a cost/side-effect warning not in annotations), returns Adobe output URLs, and can run asynchronously. It omits any note about the confirm-gate or how an async job is later retrieved.

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?

Four short sentences, zero filler, with the core purpose front-loaded and the operational caveats (credits, async) placed immediately after. Every sentence carries information an agent can act on.

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?

It correctly notes that output URLs are returned, which compensates for the absent output schema. However, for a 12-parameter, credit-spending, potentially asynchronous tool, it never explains the confirm requirement, how to poll after wait=false (the get_job_status sibling), or the credit-cost/verification flow — real gaps given the tool's complexity.

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 12 parameters thoroughly; baseline is 3. The description adds only two marginal notes (referenceBlobs enables natural-language edits, wait=false yields async) that largely restate the schema, and never explains the interplay of confirm, seeds, or modelSpecificPayload.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Generate images with Image5') and adds two distinguishing capabilities: natural-language edits via referenceBlobs and async job return. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling 'generate_image' or explain which generation tool an agent should pick, leaving the intent boundary ambiguous.

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?

It gives one concrete usage cue ('Set wait=false to return an async job') and notes the credit cost, but never states when to choose this over siblings like generate_image, generate_similar, or the composite tools. Usage is implied by capability rather than explicit.

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