edit_image

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the original file is overwritten, whether a new image path is returned, or what side effects editing has. 'Edit an existing image' leaves persistence and output behavior ambiguous.

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 short sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the second sentence reinforces the key required input without repeating schema verbosity.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description must compensate. It leaves essential execution context undisclosed, such as whether the edit is in-place, what the return value is, and which image formats are supported. Despite complete parameter documentation, the behavioral picture is incomplete.

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?

The schema describes all five parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description merely restates 'file path' and 'text instructions', adding no extra meaning for model, quality, or referenceImages.

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 states a specific verb ('Edit'), a clear resource ('existing image'), and the method ('based on text instructions'). The word 'existing' distinguishes it from sibling generate_image, making the tool's function unambiguous.

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 implied: use this when an image already exists and needs modification. However, the description does not explicitly contrast with closely related siblings like generate_image or continue_editing, nor does it state when not to use it.

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