submit_image_generation

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

Annotations declare non-read-only, open-world, non-idempotent, non-destructive, but the description adds genuinely non-obvious context: the call is billed ('收费'), it returns a task_id immediately rather than the image, and persistence only happens if the agent keeps querying. This is real behavioral value beyond the structured hints.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action and its immediate result, then the follow-up obligation. Efficient, though the raw HTTP path 'POST generations?async=true' leaks implementation detail instead of describing intent.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the async/persistence workflow is covered. Still missing for an 8-parameter, paid, open-world mutation tool are the group=official vs reverse implications, the official_options precondition, and model-choice guidance.

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 carries rich per-field documentation (size constraints, group semantics, model selection, official_options gating). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the raw 'async=true' endpoint form, so it neither compensates for the coverage gap nor contradicts anything.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('提交收费异步绘图' – submit a paid asynchronous image generation) and pins down the immediate return value ('立即返回 task_id'). The 'async' qualifier implicitly separates it from the synchronous generate_image sibling, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 tells the agent it must keep polling ('必须继续查询才能自动落盘'), which implies the get_image_task/wait_image_task siblings, and flags the operation as paid. However it never states when to pick this over generate_image, submit_image_edit, or submit_image_batch, leaving the selection decision to inference.

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