continue_editing

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It adds useful behavioral context: the tool automatically uses the previous image, is session-scoped, and optionally accepts reference images. However, it does not disclose what happens when no image exists, or that the edited image becomes the new 'last image' for subsequent iterative edits. These are important behavioral traits for a stateful 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately stating the key differentiator. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant or vague language.

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 simple 3-parameter tool with full schema coverage, the description is mostly complete. It explains what the tool does, when to use it, and the key automatic behavior. However, it omits the stateful effect that the edited image becomes the new 'last image' for future calls, which is relevant for iterative use. Minor gap.

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. The description reinforces that referenceImages are optional and mentions 'without needing a file path,' but it does not add meaning beyond the schema. It does not explain prompt syntax or aspect ratio behavior beyond what is already in the properties.

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 tool's purpose: 'Continue editing the LAST image that was generated or edited in this session' and explicitly differentiates from siblings by noting it 'automatically uses the previous image without needing a file path.' This gives a specific verb, resource, and scope, and distinguishes it from edit_image.

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 usage context: 'Use this for iterative improvements, modifications, or changes to the most recent image.' It implies when to use this tool vs. alternatives (when you want to edit the last image without a file path), but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. This is clear but lacks explicit exclusion criteria.

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