Edit Image

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It states the tool returns a saved output image path and that it consumes reference images, which implies file creation and non-destructive behavior. However, it does not disclose permission requirements, rate limits, or what happens if the operation fails.

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 with no redundancy. It front-loads the core purpose and concludes with the return value, making it easy to parse and remember.

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 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description gives a high-level overview but omits details like multi-output behavior when n>1 (possibly an array of paths) and any constraints. The schema covers parameters, so the description suffices for basic invocation but leaves some ambiguity.

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 already documents all 7 parameters with 100% coverage, so the description adds little parameter-specific detail. It reinforces that 'images' are reference files and 'prompt' describes the transformation, but does not exceed the schema's information.

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 uses a specific verb 'Edit' with the resource 'image' and identifies the model 'flux-2-klein image-to-image'. It clearly distinguishes from the sibling tool generate_image by specifying that it takes reference image files and applies a transformation.

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 provides clear context that the tool is for image-to-image editing, implying it should be used when reference images exist. However, it does not explicitly exclude text-to-image generation or name generate_image as an alternative, so it lacks explicit when-not guidance.

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