Generate image

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

Annotations only declare the safety profile (not read-only, not open-world, not destructive), so the description's latency disclosure ('typically takes 15–60 seconds') and the explicit instruction to tell the user about the wait add real behavioral value an agent cannot infer from structured fields. It stops short of covering cost, failure modes, or whether generation is cancellable.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and the conditioning modes, followed by the single operational caveat that matters to an agent. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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 5-parameter generative tool with a nested aspect-ratio object and an output schema, the description covers purpose, modes, and latency, and the output schema relieves it of explaining return values. It is nearly complete, though it omits any mention of cost, concurrency, or how generation interacts with workflow/tool-execution siblings.

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 100%, so prompt, quality, entityIds, aspectRatio, and imageFileIds are already documented in the schema itself. The description restates the conditioning inputs at a high level without adding syntax, constraints (e.g., the 4-image cap), or defaults beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb ('Generate') plus resource ('an image') with the two operating modes spelled out: text-to-image and image-to-image conditioned on source images/entity ids. This distinguishes it from siblings like generate_video_clip, generate_avatar, and upscale_image without needing to open the schema.

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?

The description implies usage by describing optional conditioning modes, but never states when to prefer this over siblings (e.g., vs. generate_avatar for actor likeness, or upscale_image for refinement). No exclusions or prerequisites are given; the only imperative is the latency warning to relay to the user.

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