Gemini Start Image Edit Tool

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the stateful, multi-turn session nature and the two operating modes, which is real behavioral context, but says nothing about session lifetime, what happens to a prior session, concurrency, or auth/cost characteristics.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then the file_path conditional, then the routing hint. No filler and each sentence carries distinct 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers the start/continue lifecycle well enough to invoke the tool. It stops short of covering session identity or teardown (there are end_image_edit and list_image_sessions siblings), leaving minor gaps for a stateful 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 description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are already documented and this sets the baseline at 3. The description adds the consequence of omitting file_path (generation instead of editing), which is useful, but adds no guidance on prompt or use_google_search beyond the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Start a multi-turn image editing session') and immediately disambiguates from the sibling it is not by naming gemini_continue_image_edit_tool. The conditional behavior with/without file_path further pins down what the tool actually does.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: use gemini_continue_image_edit_tool for further edits, and omit file_path to generate rather than edit. It does not address overlap with gemini_generate_image_with_input_tool, which also accepts a starting image, so the boundary with that sibling is left ambiguous.

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