edit_image

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds valuable context by stating 'Saves to output_path' (side effect) and mentioning iterative refinement by passing prior outputs. It doesn't cover error conditions or rate limits, but it provides meaningful behavioral insight beyond a minimal description.

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 concise and well-structured: two sentences that front-load the primary purpose, then add an important usage note and a side effect. Every sentence earns its place with no unnecessary detail.

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 description covers the core functionality, parameter roles, iterative refinement, and the output side effect. It lacks detail on the 'model' parameter and return value, but given the tool's complexity and the absence of an output schema, it is largely complete for effective selection and invocation.

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 only 25%, so the description must compensate. It does so by explaining prompt ('natural-language instruction'), image_paths ('one or more input images'), and output_path ('Saves to output_path'). However, the 'model' parameter is completely unaddressed, leaving a minor gap.

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 function: 'Edit or combine one or more input images with a natural-language instruction'. It lists specific use cases (style transfer, inpainting, compositing) and distinguishes it from sibling tools like generate_image by focusing on editing existing images rather than generating new ones.

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 implies when to use this tool: for editing or combining existing images with natural-language instructions. The phrase 'Pass a prior output back in to keep refining' explicitly highlights an iterative use case. It doesn't explicitly state alternatives or exclusions, but the context makes the primary use case clear.

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