seedream_decompose_image

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the output structure (base image plus up to 16 transparent layers), but it does not disclose side effects or caveats such as async task behavior, default watermarking, non-destructiveness, or cost/rate implications.

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?

One sentence contains a verb, object, and output shape with no filler. The key information is front-loaded, and every word 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?

For a six-parameter tool with an output schema and no annotations, the description is serviceable but incomplete: it omits the asynchronous/deferred result path implied by callback_url and the need to poll via seedream_get_task, and it does not address watermark or task lifecycle behavior. However, the input schema is thorough and the output schema is present, closing some 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 description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all six parameters and the enum. The top-level description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, which matches the baseline of 3.

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 uses a specific verb ('Decompose') with a clear resource and outcome: one input image becomes a base image plus up to 16 editable transparent layers. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like seedream_edit_image or seedream_generate_image even without explicitly naming them.

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 intended use is implied by the verb and the layer output, but the description does not explicitly state when an agent should choose decompose over edit_image, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. Sibling tool names provide some context, but the description itself gives no direct routing guidance.

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