Generate image

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

Description adds 'save it locally' beyond annotations, but omits details like file overwrite behavior (param exists), network calls, or provider-specific effects. Annotations already indicate non-destructive, non-readonly.

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?

Single sentence, no fluff. Could be improved with brief bullet list of key parameters, but structure is adequate.

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 the complexity (12 params, 33% coverage, output schema present), the description is too brief. It lacks essential usage context for edit vs generate, how to specify provider, reference images, etc.

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?

Only 33% of parameters have schema descriptions; the tool description does not explain any parameter beyond the action. Key parameters like size, model, quality, filename, provider, overwrite, output_format, output_directory are left undocumented.

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 it generates or edits one image, saves locally, and returns content. It clearly specifies the verb-resource pair, distinguishing generate from edit, but does not explain how the 'configured provider' is selected.

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?

No guidance on when to generate vs edit, or when to choose different providers. No sibling tools to differentiate from, but the description omits usage context entirely.

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