continue_editing

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behaviors: it operates on the last image in the session (stateful behavior), supports iterative editing, and can use reference images. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like session persistence, error handling, or output format, leaving some gaps for a 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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by usage guidance and behavioral details in subsequent sentences. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the tool, the second specifies use cases, and the third explains the automatic image selection. There is no wasted text or redundancy.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by explaining the tool's purpose, usage, and key behavior (automatic use of last image). However, as a mutation tool with 2 parameters, it could benefit from more detail on output (e.g., what is returned) or error conditions, though the schema covers parameters adequately.

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 fully documents both parameters (prompt and referenceImages). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as examples or constraints not captured in the schema descriptions. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 states the specific action ('continue editing'), the resource ('the LAST image that was generated or edited in this session'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying it automatically uses the previous image without a file path, unlike edit_image which likely requires explicit image input. The verb+resource combination is precise and 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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('for iterative improvements, modifications, or changes to the most recent image') and provides a clear alternative context by mentioning it automatically uses the previous image, implying edit_image should be used for other images. It also distinguishes from generate_image by focusing on editing rather than creation.

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