flow_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 and does disclose non-obvious behaviors: credit consumption only when auto_confirm=true, default no-credit safety mode, reference images attached as chips, and downloaded output location. It does not cover auth, rate limits, or failure behavior, but the key side effects are well stated.

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 three sentences, with each sentence earning its place: purpose and models, reference-image capability, and the auto_confirm behavior split. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no filler or repetition.

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 7-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the central behavioral choices and consequences—safety review, credit consumption, and output destination. It lacks return-value details and does not state whether output_folder is required when auto_confirm=true, but the response_format parameter and schema mitigate these gaps.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine narrative meaning beyond the schema: auto_confirm determines credit use and download, reference_images are described as attachment chips with an example, and output_folder is tied to high-res download. These enrich the structured parameter definitions.

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 opens with a specific action ('Generates high-fidelity images on Google Flow') and lists three concrete model choices, making the resource and output type unambiguous. The word 'images' distinguishes it from the video-generation sibling without needing to inspect 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 explicitly explains when to use auto_confirm=true versus false, including credit consumption and UI safety review, giving clear invocation context. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or exclusion conditions, so it stops short of a 5.

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