novelai_augment

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

Goes well beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false) by disclosing credit spend, the approval-plan return path for paid/unknown prices, and the absence of automatic retry. It does not state what the returned approval plan looks like or how assets are re-bound after approval.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the capability before cost behavior. No filler; each sentence carries a distinct fact.

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?

Given no output schema and a nested request object, the description covers the operation set, field pass-through and the credit/approval lifecycle well. It leaves the shape of the approval response and the file-binding mechanism to 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?

At 75% schema coverage the schema already documents most fields, but the description contributes real semantics: req_type and official fields pass through unchanged, and the approval flags only matter once a price is verified non-free. It does not clarify the boundary between cost_approved and high_resolution_approved, however.

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?

Names the specific resource (official Director Tools) and enumerates the concrete operations: background removal, line art, sketch, colorize, emotion, declutter. That is enough to tell it apart from generate/upscale/suggest_tags siblings, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with 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?

Explains the approval workflow (free vs paid vs unknown price) and that no retry happens, which guides invocation. But it gives no explicit routing advice on when to pick this over novelai_upscale, novelai_generate or novelai_encode_vibe; the operations list only implies use cases.

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