edit_image

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses model used, output format (JSON with image URL), pricing per resolution, and payment requirement. It does not cover rate limits, error responses, or image size limits, but covers key operational aspects.

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?

Description is a single paragraph, efficient and front-loaded with purpose. Each sentence adds value: model, capabilities, output, pricing, payment prerequisite. No wasted words.

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?

The tool has 6 parameters (3 required) and no output schema. Description explains payment dependency and pricing but only briefly mentions 'Returns JSON with image URL'. Could elaborate on error scenarios or response structure. Otherwise, sufficient for a paid editing tool.

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 coverage is 100% so baseline 3. Description adds value by detailing resolution-to-pricing mapping and the need for create_payment. This extra context clarifies the paymentId parameter's origin and the cost implications of resolution.

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 edits images with natural language instructions, specifying capabilities like object addition/removal, style transfer, and inpainting. It distinguishes itself from siblings like generate_image or remove_background by focusing on editing an existing image with language.

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 explains the payment flow (create_payment with toolName and resolution) and pricing tiers. It does not explicitly compare to alternatives but the capabilities are clear. It could mention when to prefer this over other image tools.

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