edit_image

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

With no annotations, the description provides basic behavioral info: input formats (URLs, base64, file paths) and output format (markdown URLs). However, it lacks disclosure of potential side effects (e.g., whether originals are modified), rate limits, authentication requirements, or error handling. The behavior beyond input/output is opaque.

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 consists of two concise sentences. The first states the core purpose, the second details input requirements and output format. Every word contributes, no redundancy, and critical information is front-loaded.

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?

Given 5 parameters with full schema descriptions, the description adds context for image input formats and output representation. It does not detail default behaviors for optional parameters (n, aspect_ratio, resolution), but those are covered by the schema. The lack of an output schema is partially addressed by the markdown hint.

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 clarifying that image_urls can be URLs, base64 data URIs, or local file paths, and that the output is in markdown format—details not fully explicit in the schema parameter descriptions themselves.

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 starts with 'Edit existing images using a text prompt', clearly specifying the verb (edit), resource (existing images), and method (text prompt). It explicitly mentions providing source images and editing instructions, distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'generate_image' which creates new images.

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 implicitly indicates usage for editing existing images by requiring 1-3 source images, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the sibling 'generate_image', nor does it provide exclusions or limitations. No guidance on prerequisites or failure scenarios.

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