Modify an existing image using text prompts to apply changes such as style transfer, object removal, or enhancements. Provide the image URL and a prompt to generate an edited version.
Edit an existing image based on text prompts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| prompt | Yes | ||
| mask_url | No | ||
| strength | No | ||
| image_url | Yes | ||
| model_name | No | ||
| preserve_original | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full behavioral disclosure burden. It does not state whether editing is reversible, what preserve_original means operationally, whether mask_url requires specific formats, or how strength affects output. One sentence is insufficient for a 6-parameter mutation tool.
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?
Single sentence with no redundancy, front-loads the core operation. Appropriate brevity given the description's limited scope.
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 6-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and incomplete schema descriptions, the description is far too thin. It doesn't explain key parameters, side effects, or how it relates to sibling image generation tools.
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 0%, meaning none of the 6 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description mentions only 'text prompts' which loosely maps to the prompt parameter. mask_url, strength, preserve_original, and model_name remain completely undocumented.
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?
States a specific verb (edit) and resource (image) with the mechanism (text prompts). This distinguishes it from generate_image (create new) though it doesn't explicitly name siblings as alternatives.
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 verb 'edit' implies usage context, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this over generate_image or generate_from_reference_image. An agent must infer the boundary from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.