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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states that it creates an edited/extended image, but does not mention output format, side effects, permissions, or failure modes. This leaves the agent uninformed about critical runtime behavior.

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 sentence with no redundant wording. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it instantly scannable.

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 complex (multiple optional parameters, binary inputs, formatting choices), and there is no output schema. The description does not explain return values, pagination, or error handling, leaving significant gaps for an agent to discover through trial and error.

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% for top-level parameters, and the description fails to compensate. It only mentions 'original image' and 'prompt,' leaving `n`, `size`, `response_format`, and `mask` undocumented in the description. The nested schema does contain descriptions, but the description itself adds minimal parameter value.

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 function with a specific verb ('Creates') and resource ('edited or extended image'). It distinguishes from siblings by requiring both an original image and a prompt, which separates it from `createImage` (prompt-only) and `createImageVariation` (image-only variation without a prompt).

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 input requirement ('given an original image and a prompt') implies the use case, but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternative tools are named.

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