Edit Image

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

The annotations already convey that this is not read-only and not idempotent. The description adds useful behavioral detail by mentioning that the result is saved and its file path returned, but it does not explain whether the original file is overwritten or a new file is created. This is a moderate gap, not a contradiction.

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?

Three tight sentences with no filler. The core action, optional input, and return value are all stated efficiently and in a sensible order.

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?

Given complete schema coverage, an output schema, and clear annotations, the description captures the essential behavior well. It could be slightly stronger by noting how this differs from continue_editing or clarifying save behavior, but overall an agent has enough to call the tool correctly.

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 schema already documents all four parameters in detail. The description adds a small clarification that referenceImages are for 'style guidance', which is consistent with the schema. It does not add substantial new parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Edit an existing image using a text prompt.' This clearly differentiates the tool from the sibling generate_image, which is about creating new images, and it also states the return behavior ('Returns the file path of the saved result').

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 description gives clear context: use this tool when editing an existing image, and optionally supply reference images for style guidance. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the 'existing image' framing makes the intended use apparent relative to generate_image.

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