edit_image

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one real constraint: image URLs must be public. Beyond that it says nothing about cost, latency, whether an async task is created (get_task exists as a sibling, hinting at job semantics), or what happens with multiple reference images.

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?

One sentence with no filler, and the model name and URL constraint are front-loaded. It is efficient, though its brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined pruning.

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, but for a 4-parameter generative tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description should cover seed/size semantics and likely async task behavior. Too much is left for the agent to guess.

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 0% and all four parameters are undocumented. The description hints at image_urls ('public image URLs') but says nothing about prompt, seed, or size — notably whether size accepts named presets or WxH strings, which the bare string type leaves ambiguous.

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 ('Edit reference images') plus the underlying model name and an input constraint, which is enough to tell it apart from edit_video and generate_image at a high level. It lacks an explicit differentiation statement against generate_image, the nearest sibling, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus generate_image or edit_video, and no stated prerequisites beyond the implied 'public image URLs' constraint. The agent must infer the selection rule from sibling names alone.

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