image_edit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the purpose and parameters but does not mention side effects, permissions, whether the original file is modified, or how the output is delivered (e.g., saved to output_dir, returned as a URL, etc.). This is a significant gap for a mutation-like 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 concise: a one-sentence purpose followed by a structured Args list. Each parameter entry is necessary and informative, with no redundancy or filler. The format is front-loaded and easy to scan.

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 (6 parameters, no annotations), the description covers parameters well, but it omits behavioral details such as default output location, whether output_dir is required to save results, and error handling. The presence of an output schema partially mitigates the lack of return-value documentation, but overall completeness is only adequate.

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%, but the description compensates fully by explaining every parameter with specific constraints: absolute paths for image_path, prompt semantics for what to preserve/remove/modify, size must be multiples of 8, and output_dir must be within the safe root. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 that the tool uses a local reference image via MetaRouter to edit or perform image-to-image, specifying both the action and resource. This distinguishes it from siblings like image_generate (which likely generates from text) and image_batch_edit (which implies batch processing).

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 that the tool should be used when a local reference image is available for editing, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide any exclusion criteria. No alternatives are named, leaving usage guidance mostly implicit.

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