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. It usefully discloses accepted input sources (local paths, URLs, data URIs) and prompt-expansion behavior, but says nothing about cost, whether the result is returned inline or written to disk, or what output_path does by default for a generative operation.

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 tightly written sentences that front-load the core action and then the prompt-quality tip. Every clause earns its place, with no redundant restatement of the tool name or schema fields.

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 7-parameter generation/edit tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers inputs but leaves the output contract and cost/behavior profile unstated. It is minimally adequate given the rich schema, but not fully complete.

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%, so all seven parameters are already documented in the schema, including enums for style, image_size, and aspect_ratio. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond this baseline, which is acceptable but unremarkable.

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 states a specific verb (edit/transform) and resource (existing images via text prompt and reference images). The word 'existing' implicitly distinguishes it from generate_image, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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 real guidance on prompt preparation ('expand brief prompts... unless the user explicitly asked for a simple/minimal prompt'), which is useful operating advice. However, it offers no guidance on when to pick this tool over generate_image, batch_images, or how it relates to list_image_models/check_balance, so tool selection is left to inference.

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