generate_image

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly false, openWorld true, non-idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds traits they do not carry: the call is billed, POST is not automatically retried, and output is persisted to disk. The retry and billing notes are operationally important for a paid, non-idempotent call.

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 compact clauses lead with the core operation, then routing, then cost/retry behavior — well front-loaded with no filler. The phrase "默认逆向五参数" is too compressed to decode, which is the one structural weakness.

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 an 8-parameter synchronous generation tool with an output schema, the description covers sync execution, disk persistence, group routing, and billing. It omits how the sync path relates to the sibling async/batch submission tools and gives no guidance on the images input beyond the schema.

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 63%, and the schema itself richly documents size, images, model, and official_options. The description adds only the group-default rule and the fact that official_options is rejected pre-billing without group=official; "默认逆向五参数" is opaque and adds little usable meaning.

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?

"同步生成并落盘" gives a specific verb (generate), a modality (synchronous), and a side effect (writes to disk), which separates it from the async submit_* siblings and from edit_image. However it never names those siblings explicitly, so the agent must infer the distinction from the word "同步" alone.

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 states the routing rule for the group parameter (default reverse; official only when the user explicitly wants the official route), which is real when-to-use guidance. It does not, however, say when to pick this tool over submit_image_generation or submit_image_batch, leaving the sync-vs-async choice to inference.

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