gemini_continue_image_edit_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It only says 'Continue editing in an active image session' but does not disclose what happens to the image/session, whether the operation mutates state, what errors could occur, or what the return value represents. This is a minimal non-behavioral statement.

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 a single short sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the action and resource and contains only the necessary information.

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?

This is a simple two-parameter tool with an output schema and clear schema descriptions. The phrase 'active image session' plus the schema's `session_id` reference to gemini_start_image_edit gives sufficient operating context. It does not spell out lifecycle ordering or error handling, but for this small tool the overall context is 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 100%, and the schema already defines both parameters clearly: prompt as editing instructions and session_id as the session from gemini_start_image_edit. The narrative description adds no extra parameter semantics, so baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Continue editing') and a clear resource ('an active image session'), which cleanly distinguishes this tool from its siblings like gemini_start_image_edit or gemini_generate_image. It matches the tool's name and states exactly what action is performed.

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 phrase 'in an active image session' implies the tool should be used only after a session has been started, but the description does not explicitly say when to use this over gemini_start_image_edit or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned.

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