Generate a brand-consistent image

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the asynchronous job pattern (returns Job ID, poll until completed), automatic brand styling, and a credit cost (~40 credits). This goes beyond typical descriptions, though it doesn't mention failure handling or rate limits.

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?

Three sentences, no fluff. Front-loaded with the core purpose, then the critical usage pattern (poll get_job, use key) and cost. Every sentence earns its place.

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 is async and has no output schema, so the description's explanation of the Job ID and polling flow is essential and provided. It also covers key usage and cost. Minor gaps (failure behavior, style/aspect ratio examples) are not critical, given schema coverage and the concise guidance.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context for the `key` parameter, explaining how it makes the image addressable later via GET /v1/images/{key} and recommends it. Other parameters are not elaborated, but the schema already handles them.

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 tool's action: 'Generate a brand-consistent image' and adds specificity by noting it automatically uses the project's color palette and visual tone. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_image (fetch) and generate_video/generate_blog_post (other content types).

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?

Provides clear usage context: returns a Job ID to poll with get_job, and recommends passing `key` for later addressability. While it doesn't explicitly say when not to use (e.g., for existing images), naming get_job as a companion tool gives actionable how-to guidance.

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