edit_image

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

No annotations provided, so description must carry full burden. It mentions image_path must be a local file path, but does not disclose what happens to the original file, output naming, or defaults for parameters like output_directory. Lacks details on side effects or failure modes.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no unnecessary words. The second sentence adds a critical constraint. All sentences earn their place.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain how parameters like count (multiple edits?) or output_directory work, nor what the tool returns or saves.

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%, so description needs to add meaning. Only image_path constraint is clarified; other parameters (size, count, prompt, output_directory) are not explained. The default values and their implications remain unclear.

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 edits an existing local image with a prompt and saves locally. It uses specific verbs and resources and distinguishes from sibling tools like generate_image by emphasizing 'existing local image'.

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 (not generating new ones), but does not explicitly state when to use or avoid this tool, nor mention alternatives like generate_image or list_image_options.

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