edit_image

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

Annotations already declare write (readOnlyHint=false), non-destructive, and open-world behavior, so the description should add operational context such as whether results are written to disk, expected latency, or cost implications. It adds none of that; 'according to the prompt' restates the obvious. The only unstated-but-inferable behavior, file output, comes from the schema's output_name, not the description.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though its brevity is part of why behavior and usage remain under-explained.

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?

The tool has an output schema and full parameter documentation, so the description need not explain return values. However, for a six-parameter, open-world generation tool that writes artifacts, it omits file-output behavior, cost considerations (a cost_report sibling exists), and model selection implications, leaving meaningful gaps for an agent deciding between edit_image and generate_image.

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 model, prompt, resolution, image_paths, output_name, and aspect_ratio are all documented in the schema itself, which sets the baseline at 3. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning beyond what is already structured.

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 names a specific verb pair (edit/combine) and resource (images) plus the driving input (the prompt), so an agent knows it transforms supplied images rather than creating new ones. It stops short of naming generate_image as the alternative, so differentiation is implied by 'one or more images' rather than stated.

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?

Usage is only implied: the phrase 'edit or combine one or more images' signals that reference images must exist, which separates it from generate_image. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or cost/quality tradeoff guidance relative to the sibling generation and model-listing tools.

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