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 mentions downloading results locally, returning MCP Image content, and critically, 'optionally delete remote gallery assets after success' – a potentially destructive side effect. This is transparent about the tool's major behaviors, though it omits details like authentication requirements or error handling.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no filler. Every clause adds information: editing, downloading, returning MCP content, optional deletion, and URL constraints. It is a model of concise, well-structured tool documentation.

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 gives a reasonable overall workflow (edit, download, return, optionally delete) and specifies the input constraint of 1-8 publicly accessible URLs. However, with no output schema, the return type is only vaguely described as 'MCP Image content', and several parameters remain unaddressed. The sibling list provides context, but the tool's full behavior is not completely specified.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for eight undocumented parameters. The description adds meaning for image_urls ('1-8 publicly reachable image URLs') and implicitly for delete_remote ('optionally delete remote gallery assets'), but leaves model, size, quality, resolution, and aspect_ratio unexplained. This is insufficient for a tool with this many parameters.

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 starts with the specific verb 'Edit existing image(s)', clearly indicating the tool's function of modifying existing images rather than creating new ones. It also mentions the optional deletion of remote assets, which adds a distinctive behavioral scope that separates it from siblings like generate_image.

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 phrase 'Edit existing image(s)' and 'Provide 1-8 publicly reachable image URLs' establishes clear usage context: users should call this when they have existing images to modify. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the contrast with sibling tools like generate_image is implicit.

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