continue_editing

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. Describes stateful behavior (operates on last image) but lacks details on whether it overwrites or creates new, what happens if no image exists, or other side effects.

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 sentences, front-loaded with action ('Continue editing...'), no unnecessary words. Every phrase earns its place.

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?

Adequate for a simple tool with good schema coverage, but lacks behavioral details (e.g., error states, mutability) and does not reference sibling tools for when-not-to-use. With no output schema or annotations, additional context would be helpful.

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 100% with descriptions. The description adds value by clarifying the 'without specifying file path' aspect, which explains why there is no file path parameter and emphasizes the stateful context.

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?

Clearly states verb 'continue editing' and resource 'last generated/edited image in this session'. Distinguishes from sibling tools by mentioning no file path needed, implying it's for iterative improvements on the most recent 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?

Explicitly says 'use for iterative improvements without specifying the file path', giving clear context for when to use. However, no explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool references, though sibling names suggest alternatives.

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