novelai_revise

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

Adds real value beyond annotations: 'Creates a new run and may spend credits; never overwrites the earlier image' directly clarifies the destructiveHint=false and the credit-spend risk that openWorldHint alone does not convey. It also documents the JSON Merge Patch mutation semantics (objects merge, arrays replace, null deletes), which is essential for predicting behavior.

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?

Five dense sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by the highest-risk details (patch semantics, credit spend). No filler, though the prompt/negative_prompt caption note is somewhat terse.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, it covers the critical unknowns: new run creation, credit spend, and non-destructiveness toward the source image. The approval-flag workflow is left to schema descriptions, which is acceptable, but run_id/file binding behavior could be clearer.

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 only 33% across 9 parameters, so the description must compensate. It usefully explains patch semantics, prompt/negative_prompt caption synchronization, and use_output_as_input, but leaves files, image_index, run_id, and the binding pointer/path structure unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Continue a prior generation, keeping every unmodified parameter.' An agent can distinguish this from novelai_generate (fresh generation) without opening the schema, 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?

Implies usage (modify a prior run) and explains that use_output_as_input switches to img2img from a previous output, but gives no explicit when-to-use vs novelai_generate/novelai_augment, nor any when-not conditions.

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