edit_image

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool uses 'FLUX Kontext' and is for editing images, but it doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only or destructive operation, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what the output looks like. For a tool that likely involves image manipulation and external API calls, this lack of detail is a significant gap.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose and usage instructions. The sentences are efficient, with no wasted words, and the Args section is structured clearly. However, the lack of behavioral details and incomplete parameter coverage slightly reduces its overall effectiveness, but it remains concise.

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 complexity of an image editing tool with 6 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, but an output schema, the description is partially complete. It covers the basic purpose and two parameters but misses behavioral context and details for most parameters. The output schema likely handles return values, but without annotations or full parameter guidance, it's adequate but with clear gaps.

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%, so the description must compensate. It only explains two parameters ('image_url' and 'prompt') in the Args section, leaving four parameters ('model', 'seed', 'output_format', 'filename') undocumented. While it adds meaning for the required parameters, it fails to cover the majority of parameters, resulting in incomplete guidance for tool invocation.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Edit an existing image using natural language instructions (FLUX Kontext).' It specifies the verb ('edit'), resource ('existing image'), and method ('natural language instructions'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'generate_image' or 'generate_with_reference' by focusing on editing rather than generation. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'generate_with_reference', which might also use reference images, slightly limiting differentiation.

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 provides some usage context: 'Great for iterating on generated images' and implies usage by stating 'Pass a reference image and describe the changes you want in the prompt.' This suggests it's for editing existing images, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'generate_with_reference' or 'raw_generate', nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites, leaving room for ambiguity.

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