edit_image

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 mentions the tool edits existing files and uses reference images, but lacks details on permissions, side effects, error handling, or output format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a moderate gap, though the core action is clear.

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 two concise sentences that are front-loaded with the main purpose and usage guideline. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 (editing images with mutations), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and usage but misses behavioral details like what the tool returns or potential side effects, leaving gaps for an AI agent to operate safely.

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 documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only implying that 'imagePath' must be exact and 'referenceImages' are optional for tasks like style transfer. Baseline 3 is appropriate as 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 states the verb ('Edit') and resource ('a SPECIFIC existing image file'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'generate_image' (creates new) and 'continue_editing' (continues previous edits). The specificity about modifying existing files is explicit and well-articulated.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool ('when you have the exact file path of an image to modify'), which implicitly distinguishes it from 'generate_image' (for new images) and 'continue_editing' (for ongoing edits). However, it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name alternatives, keeping it at a 4.

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