Edit a project image (Gemini)

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

With no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: non-destructive, versioned, async (returns jobId), costs 1 credit. It misses rate limits or error handling but is adequate.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, each sentence adding unique value: purpose, edit types, conditions and async behavior. No redundancy.

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?

No output schema exists, but description explains return value (jobId) and effect. Covers major edit type conditions and cost. Lacks error behavior or auth requirements but sufficient for most use cases.

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 coverage is 57%. The description adds meaning by explaining editType enum values and required combinations (e.g., advancedParams for replace/remove/add), complementing schema descriptions for style, roomType, etc.

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 it creates a non-destructive, versioned edit, listing many edit types and async behavior. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like add_image_from_file or get_clip_status.

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?

It implies usage by listing required conditions for edit types (e.g., staging needs roomType+style), but does not provide when-to-use vs alternatives or when-not-to-use.

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