image_edit

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the tool modifies files, requires authentication, or has rate limits. It merely states a vague transformation without explaining side effects or safety.

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 extremely brief (one sentence), which is concise but lacks structure. It front-loads a verb phrase but fails to elaborate on the tool's functionality or parameters. The sentence mixes Chinese and awkward phrasing, reducing clarity.

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 has 8 parameters, no annotations, and no schema descriptions, the description is grossly insufficient. It does not explain required inputs, optional parameters, expected output (even though an output schema exists), or usage patterns. Critical gaps leave the agent unable to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate by explaining parameters. It only indirectly references 'image_path', ignoring 6 other parameters including 'mask_path', 'size', 'model', etc. No parameter semantics are conveyed.

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 states 'Single image reference/edit' and mentions passing a local image to image_generation, giving a vague sense of purpose. However, it does not clearly differentiate from siblings like 'image_generate' or 'image_batch_edit', and the reference to 'Responses image input' is ambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'image_generate' or 'image_multi_reference'. There is no indication of prerequisites, constraints, or exclusions.

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