gemini_edit_image

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It mentions session history references and 'image consistency features,' but doesn't explain what the tool returns, whether the original image is modified or a new file is created, or any side effects like default save location (which appears only in the schema). This is insufficient for a tool that modifies files.

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 just two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a useful capability note. There is no wasted wording, and it avoids repeating schema details. It's concise and directly readable, though the phrase 'image consistency features' is slightly vague but not excessive.

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's complexity (7 parameters) and absence of an output schema, the description should explain return values and behavioral outcomes, but it doesn't. It also leaves 'image consistency features' undefined, forcing the agent to infer from the schema. Missing information about default output behavior and effects on the original image makes the description incomplete for safe autonomous use.

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 parameter meanings are already documented. The description's mention of history references and consistency adds no new information beyond the schema's detailed parameter descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: 'Edit or modify existing images based on prompts.' The verb 'edit/modify' plus the resource 'existing images' distinguishes it from sibling gemini_generate_image, which creates new images. It also mentions key capabilities like history references, making the purpose unambiguous.

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—edit existing images when you have a prompt—but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like gemini_generate_image or gemini_chat. It doesn't state exclusions or name alternative tools for different scenarios, so guidance is only implied, not explicit.

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