edit_image

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a genuinely useful behavioral trait: the result is a NEW layer above with the same mask/place while the original stays below (non-destructive editing). It says nothing about permissions, rate limits, or what the backend parameter changes, so behavior beyond compositing is opaque.

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?

Three tight clauses, front-loaded with the operation and its scope, then strength semantics, then the compositing result. Each sentence earns its place; only minor density in the parenthetical examples could be trimmed.

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, mutation-adjacent AI tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core workflow and non-destructive result but omits the meaning of seed/backend/project, the relationship to the inpaint sibling, and any indication of what comes back.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds real meaning for strength ('low keeps it, high reinvents it'), box ('a box of the picture'), and layer (implied by 'redo an image layer'), but leaves seed, backend, and project wholly undocumented in both places.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('redo an image layer... following the prompt') and anchors the genre with 'Image-to-image', which distinguishes it from text-to-image siblings like generate_image. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with the very similar sibling inpaint, so the boundary between the two remains for the agent to infer.

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?

Usage is implied by the framing and concrete prompt examples ('make it winter', 'watercolor style'), and the scope options (layer / box / whole picture) hint at when each mode applies. There is no explicit statement of when to choose edit_image over inpaint, generate_image, or remove_background, and no 'when not to use' guidance.

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