edit-image

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full behavioral burden and meets it: it discloses that flash is the default for every kind, that pro offered no benefit for fixes and re-cropped, that token edits re-apply the chroma plate for future cutting, and that the response includes file path, dimensions, and estimated spend. These are meaningful behavioral details beyond what the input schema alone conveys.

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?

Four information-dense sentences with no filler. The primary verb and scope are front-loaded, followed by tier behavior, the token-specific quirk, and return values. Every sentence earns its 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?

For a mutating tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral contract: return values, default tier behavior, the special token handling, and the 'keep everything else identical' philosophy. The schema covers parameter details, and the sibling context makes the tool's role clear.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 7 parameters in detail. The description adds a little context around the instruction ('one instruction' and preserving attributes) but does not materially expand parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pairing ('Edit an existing image') and adds the key constraints: one instruction, preserving identity, pose, angle, and style. This clearly distinguishes edit-image from generate-image and cutout-image by establishing it operates on an existing image rather than creating or extracting.

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 gives clear context for when this tool applies: modifying an existing image while preserving its core attributes. Sibling names like generate-image imply the alternative of creating new images, but the description does not explicitly say 'use this instead of generate-image when the source already exists' or list exclusions.

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