modifyImage

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only says 'modify' without mentioning what the tool returns, whether it mutates the input, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool that processes image data.

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 description is a single concise sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately brief but could benefit from a bit more detail, yet this dimension focuses on structure and size, which is well-handled.

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 the tool's complexity (image editing with optional parameters) and lack of output schema/annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the output will be (e.g., a modified image in what format) or how the optional parameters affect behavior, leaving the agent without essential context.

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?

Since schema description coverage is 100%, all four parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond that, merely echoing the concept of 'text instructions' (matching the 'instructions' parameter) without elaborating on 'strength' or 'preserveStyle'.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Modify existing images with text instructions.' It uses a specific verb (modify) and resource (existing images), and contrasts with sibling tools like generateImage (creation) and analyzeImage (reading), making its purpose distinct.

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 implies usage for editing existing images via text prompts, which differentiates it from generation or analysis. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, leaving the guidance to inference.

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