generate_image

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the image is 'salva localmente' (saved locally) and mentions native resolution, but it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., file overwriting), authentication requirements, rate limits, or the nature of the returned result. The 'saves locally' is a meaningful behavior, but coverage is incomplete for a tool with no annotations.

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?

The description is a single purpose sentence followed by a parameter list. It is front-loaded with the core action and output behavior, and the parameter list is directly relevant. There is no redundant or filler text. It could be slightly tighter by merging the parameter descriptions with the schema, but it remains concise and structured.

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?

The tool has 5 parameters, 1 required, and an output schema exists (though not shown). The description covers the main purpose and parameter values but does not explain what the tool returns (beyond saving locally), any prerequisites (e.g., access to Google Flow), or failure modes. Given the output schema exists, return details might be covered there, but the description alone leaves gaps about the actual output format and any side effects beyond file saving.

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 is the sole source of parameter meaning. It explicitly enumerates allowed values for ratio ('16:9', '9:16', '1:1', '3:4', '4:3'), model ('Nano Banana 2' or 'Nano Banana Pro'), and resolution ('1K' or '2K'), which the schema does not provide as enums. It also describes prompt as 'Descrição visual detalhada da cena' and reference_image as a local path for character/style consistency, adding meaning beyond the schema's bare titles and defaults.

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 clearly states the verb 'Gera' (generates), the resource 'imagem cinematográfica de alta qualidade' (high-quality cinematic image), and the context 'no Google Flow' (in Google Flow). It also specifies that the image is saved locally at native resolution. This unambiguously distinguishes it from the sibling generate_video, which generates video instead of images.

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 is given on when to choose this tool over generate_video or flow_status. The description does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or alternative selection criteria. It simply describes what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer that it's for images versus video.

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