Edit Image with Gemini

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

The description discloses that the tool returns an edited image with preview and saves to disk, and mentions the underlying model family. However, it omits details such as token costs, whether the original is altered, or any side effects beyond saving. With no annotations, these gaps leave the description only partially transparent.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose. Every word contributes, no redundancy or 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?

Given the tool has six parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the core workflow. It mentions return and disk saving, but does not elaborate on cost or how to choose between filePath and data for large images (though the schema covers that). Overall, it is reasonably complete for a typical use case.

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?

The input schema has full (100%) coverage and detailed descriptions for every parameter, including resolution options and thoughtSignature. The tool description itself adds no new information about parameters beyond what the schema already states, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 edits images using Google Gemini image models (Nano Banana Pro), explicitly distinguishing it from generation tools. It also notes the return of an edited image with preview and disk saving, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 instructs to provide images and natural-language instructions, which implies the primary use case. It does not explicitly compare with alternatives like generate_image or mention when not to use it, but the context is clear.

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