agnes_image_edit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the default model (agnes-image-2.1-flash) and multi-image composition, but lacks information about output format, side effects, authentication, or limitations. This is a significant gap for a tool of this complexity.

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 concise and front-loaded, with three sentences covering purpose, model, and key parameter usage. It avoids fluff, though it could be slightly longer to accommodate the tool's complexity.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the 9-parameter tool with no annotations requires richer guidance. The description only covers image_paths and the default model, leaving major aspects like prompt requirements, mask usage, output_format, and when to use size/ratio unaddressed.

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 the description must compensate. It only explains image_paths (URLs or local files) and mentions the default model; the remaining 8 parameters (prompt, size, ratio, mask_path, extra_body, return_base64, output_filename, response_format) are left unexplained.

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 purpose with a specific verb+resource: 'Edit or compose images through Agnes img2img'. It distinguishes itself from sibling generation tools by focusing on editing/composing from existing images via image_paths.

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/composing rather than generating, but does not explicitly compare with alternatives like agnes_image_generate or mention when not to use this tool. It provides some usage context (URLs or local files) but no exclusions.

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