Edit Image

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure, yet it only says 'edit'. It does not disclose whether the edit is applied in place, returns a new image, consumes credits, requires authentication, or behaves asynchronously.

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 a single compact sentence with no filler. It front-loads the purpose and adds useful concrete examples of allowed feature ids.

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?

For a 5-parameter tool with nested options, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is incomplete. An agent cannot know which features require which optional parameters or what a successful call returns.

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 only 40%, and the description contributes little beyond feature id examples. prompt, maskUrl, and options are left undefined, and options is a free-form nested object that needs more explanation.

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 names a specific action and resource ('Edit an image') and lists concrete feature ids, so an agent can tell this is an image-editing tool. It does not explicitly compare to the sibling generate tools, but the edit verb is enough to distinguish it from generation.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance or mention of when generate_image or generate_video would be preferable. The only usage hint is to pass a feature id, which is already required by the schema.

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