Plan Ecommerce Images

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, consistent with plan-only generation. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: selling_points are treated as verified facts and never fabricated, reference_images are passed through verbatim and only read/downloaded at actual render time, and resolution is passed as-is per item for model routing.

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?

A single lead sentence followed by terse parameter-keyed lines; front-loaded purpose with no filler. It reads as a compact cheat-sheet rather than prose, which suits the task.

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 and annotations cover the safety profile, so return-value detail is rightly omitted. However, for a 9-parameter planning tool embedded in a plan→confirm→submit ecommerce pipeline, the description never explains where the resulting plan goes next or how it is reviewed, leaving a workflow gap.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load. It does explain scene enum meanings, selling_points semantics, count with a recommendation (detail pages ~6 items), and reference_images/resolution pass-through, but it is silent on copy_text, requirements, aspect_ratio (a 10-value enum), and product_name — roughly half the parameters remain undocumented anywhere.

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+resource (生成…绘图计划) and enumerates the four scene types it plans for, making clear this produces a reviewable plan rather than actual images. It implicitly distinguishes itself from image-generation siblings like generate_images/submit_image_tasks, though it never names them.

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?

The '可审阅' (reviewable) framing and '真正出图前' (before actually rendering) clause imply this is a pre-generation planning step, so usage is inferable. But with siblings plan_ecommerce_design, confirm_ecommerce_design, and submit_ecommerce_design present, the description gives no explicit routing rule for when to pick this tool over those.

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