edit_image

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states 'Saves to disk and returns the file path,' which is a key behavior. However, it does not mention whether original input images are modified, overwriting behavior, or output format requirements, leaving gaps in transparency.

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 two sentences, starting with the core action and then the output behavior. It uses concise, direct language with no unnecessary filler.

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 the tool has 9 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential flow: input images, prompt, save, and return. It would benefit from an explicit note about using generate_image for new images, but overall it is adequate for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and basic usage.

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 description is not required to repeat parameter details. It adds meaning by clarifying the `images` parameter (first is base, others references) and the `prompt` as a 'text prompt,' which enriches the schema definitions.

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 begins with 'Edit or combine images per a text prompt,' which clearly identifies the tool's function as image editing/combination. It also mentions the base/reference role of images, distinguishing it from sibling generate_image which likely creates new images from scratch.

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?

It explains that the first image is the base and others are references, giving clear guidance on how to structure the images array. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over generate_image, so it lacks an explicit exclusion clause.

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