Generate precise composite

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

Annotations already declare the mutation/safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false), so the bar is lower and the description clears it by adding credit consumption, the shape of the return value (Adobe output URLs), and the async escape hatch via wait=false. It stops short of documenting polling (get_job_status), cost magnitude, or the mandatory confirm flag, so it is not a 5.

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, front-loaded with the purpose and free of filler; nothing is padded or repeated. It is efficient, though the extreme terseness leaves semantic gaps that a slightly longer description could have closed.

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 complex tool with 10 parameters, required nested objects (background, object, fillAreaMask), and no output schema, the description is far too thin. It omits the mandatory confirm flag, the URL-vs-uploadId input requirement, polling of async jobs, and any distinction from the sibling composite tools.

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 10 parameters, including wait, confirm, seeds, and the n/numVariations alias exclusivity. The description's only parameter-related statement ('Set wait=false to return an async job') merely paraphrases the schema text for wait, adding no new syntax, constraints, or defaults.

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 opening sentence 'Generate precise composite' is essentially a restatement of the tool title, so it does little beyond the name. It never explains what a 'precise' composite is or how it differs from closely-named siblings like adaptive_composite and generate_object_composite. The agent learns it produces a composite image, but not what distinguishes this operation.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use, and no mention of the three sibling composite tools (generate_object_composite, adaptive_composite, generative_fill) that an agent must choose between. The only usage-like detail (wait=false for async) is a parameter restatement, not routing guidance, and the 'confirm' prerequisite for spending credits is never surfaced.

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