tool_image_editor

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden but only lists parameters and outputs without explaining behavior. It does not state whether the tool returns a new file or modifies in place, what transformations are applied, or what 'info' contains, and it confusingly lists 'info' as an output while the input schema includes it as a property.

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 brief and structured as a parameter/output list, which is easy to scan. However, the section headers and duplicate information from the schema, along with the placement of 'info' under outputs, introduce minor structural confusion.

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 tool has a nested file parameter and no output schema, so the description should explain return semantics and parameter constraints. It merely lists 'file' and 'info' as outputs without detail, and does not describe valid ranges for numeric parameters or expected behavior, leaving significant gaps.

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 specifies each parameter with descriptions, and the description largely mirrors this information. The only additional detail is labeling 'info' as 'json' and 'file' as 'bytes', but this adds minimal value and creates inconsistency by listing 'info' under outputs rather than inputs.

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 identifies the tool as an 'Image Editor' and lists parameters like brightness, contrast, saturation, and grayscale, which imply image adjustment functionality. However, it lacks an explicit verb or statement of what the tool does with these parameters, and the output section introduces 'info' without clear purpose, making the purpose somewhat ambiguous.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as tool_image_compress or tool_exif_viewer. There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without criteria for tool selection.

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