Edit an image

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It adds useful insight: the prompt must specify what stays unchanged, and that sentence determines whether the edit holds. However, it omits other behavioral details like async return behavior, waiting, or failure modes.

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 brief, front-loaded, and every sentence contributes actionable information. The parenthetical example makes the key instruction concrete without padding.

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 has no annotations and no output schema, so the description needs to stand alone. It covers the core editing workflow well, but it does not mention result/return behavior or the wait parameter's purpose, which are relevant given the sibling get_task tool.

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 100%, giving baseline 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining how to write the prompt (change + keep) with an example, which materially clarifies the prompt parameter's expected format.

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 action ('edit') and the resource ('a photo you already have'), which distinguishes it from generating new images. It does not explicitly name sibling tools, but 'you already have' makes the scope reasonably clear.

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 gives concrete usage instructions: pass the image URL and describe what should change and what must stay. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool instead of generate_image or generate_video, or when not to use it.

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