edit_image

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 does not mention that the tool invokes an external model (OpenRouter), that it produces and saves a new image file, or whether the original file is left untouched. These are relevant side effects for an image-editing tool and are not disclosed.

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 sentence with no filler; the operation, resource, and input type are front-loaded, and the examples are compactly contained in parentheses. Every part earns its place.

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 is adequately covered for a straightforward call because the schema documents all parameters. However, without annotations or an output schema, the description could usefully disclose that the operation uses a remote model and saves the resulting image to output_path or a default folder.

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 all six parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds only illustrative examples of prompt instructions (add elements, change backgrounds, alter style), which adds minor context but does not go beyond the schema's parameter documentation.

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 specific verbs ('edits or transforms') and a clear resource ('existing image from a local file'), making the tool's function unmistakable. The phrase 'existing image' also implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling generate_image, which creates images rather than modifying an existing one.

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 this tool is for modifying an existing image using natural-language instructions, which is enough to guide selection versus generate_image. It does not, however, explicitly name the sibling or state when to prefer one over the other.

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