edit_image

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the default model and strength range, but it does not say whether the original image is overwritten, where the edited result is saved, or what the return value is. This is a notable gap for a mutation tool.

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 purpose is front-loaded in one sentence, followed by a compact argument list. Every line adds value and there is no redundancy or filler.

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?

All parameters are documented, but the tool has no output schema and no annotations. The description never states what the tool returns or what side effects it has on the source file. For a 6-parameter tool with no other structured context, this leaves an agent unable to fully predict the tool's effect.

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%, but the description compensates thoroughly. It defines all six parameters with useful detail: image_path path format and supported formats, prompt purpose, model default, size meaning, strength range and interpretation, and seed optionality. This goes well beyond the bare schema types.

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 'Edit an existing image with a text prompt,' which states a specific verb, resource, and method. It clearly differentiates this tool from siblings like generate_image (create new) and text_to_speech (unrelated audio).

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 usage context is implied: edit an existing image. But the description never explicitly mentions alternatives such as generate_image or conditions when not to use this tool. The distinction from sibling tools is inferable but not stated.

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