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

Annotations already declare the mutation/safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds real value beyond them: it discloses the asynchronous nature, the ~1-2 minute duration, that the edited image is applied to the post automatically, and how to track progress via get_task_status.

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 tightly written sentences with zero filler; the core purpose is front-loaded and the async/tracking details follow. Every clause 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 an async, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the essentials an agent needs: what it does, that it runs in the background, that the result is applied automatically, and how to poll. It stops short of describing what get_task_status returns or whether the edit is reversible.

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 and the schema already documents both params. The description adds meaning by giving concrete examples of valid instruction content ('make the background blue', 'remove the text'), clarifying the expected free-form input beyond the schema's terse 'What to change in the image'.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('AI-edit a post's image') and clarifies the interaction mode with a natural-language instruction, backed by two concrete examples. It is distinguishable from manual siblings like open_image_editor, but it never names or contrasts with alternatives such as change_image, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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 scenario in which this tool applies is implied by the purpose (edit a post's image via instruction) and the note to check get_task_status gives operational context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of when to prefer change_image or open_image_editor instead.

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