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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds real value by disclosing concrete per-image pricing by quality tier and confirming that resending the same request re-edits and re-charges. This cost/non-idempotency context is genuinely useful for a paid mutation tool, though it omits any note on output delivery or latency.

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 pricing information is stated twice – once in prose and again in a bracketed line – which is redundant rather than additive. The core edit action is front-loaded, but the duplicated cost block wastes space.

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?

With no output schema and a fully documented input schema, the description covers the key non-parameter concerns: cost, per-image billing, and non-idempotent re-charging. It is complete enough to call correctly, though it could note output format defaults or delivery behavior.

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 all six parameters are already documented in the schema, including the quality-to-price mapping and size enum. The description restates the quality pricing but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so 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?

States a specific verb (편집합니다) and resource (이미지 한 장), and the '한 장' (single image) scoping distinguishes it from batch siblings like image_batch_create. It does not explicitly name an alternative such as image_generate, so it stops 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?

Usage is only implied: you have an original image plus an edit instruction. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance or routing to alternatives like image_generate for new images, though the input/output distinction is inferable from the required params.

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