Edit Image

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

Annotations already indicate this is not read-only and not destructive, so the description's extra context about the POST endpoint, multipart structure, and the rejected 'transparent' background adds meaningful behavioral detail. It does not contradict the annotations, and it clarifies one non-obvious failure mode.

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 focused sentence that front-loads the core action and endpoint, then packs optionality and a rejection rule into a parenthetical. There is no filler or repeated schema content.

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 tool with a fully documented input schema and an output schema, the description is largely complete: it names the endpoint, the required operation, the relevant multipart fields, and the key exception. Minor gaps such as cost or model lookup guidance are covered in the schema itself, so the description does not need to repeat them.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds value by compactly showing the multipart field names and optionality ('image, mask?, prompt, model, n?, size?, background?') and by explaining that 'background=transparent is rejected', which supplements the enum in 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Edit a local image via POST /v1/images/edits'. It also distinguishes itself from generate_image by explicitly noting that 'background=transparent is rejected' and directing the agent to the alternative tool.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when a local image needs editing. It gives an explicit when-not rule by stating that transparent backgrounds are rejected and points to generate_image as the alternative. It does not enumerate all sibling comparisons, but the primary routing guidance is present.

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