edit_image

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

No annotations exist, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It only says 'edit' without disclosing side effects like file overwriting, return behavior, or permission requirements. The mutation nature is implied but not detailed, leaving significant gaps.

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?

A single sentence (18 words) that front-loads the verb and resource, with zero wasted words. Every part earns its place, achieving maximum conciseness.

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 an output schema exists (so return values need not be explained) and only 3 simple parameters, the description is largely sufficient. It omits details like model default but schema covers it. For a straightforward tool, it is nearly complete.

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 description coverage is 100%; baseline is 3. The description adds 'Provide the path to the source image and a description of the desired changes', which modestly rephrases prompt and imagePath but adds no new semantics for the model parameter. It does not exceed baseline value.

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 clearly states 'Edit an existing image using a text prompt', specifying the verb (edit), resource (existing image), and method (text prompt). It distinguishes from sibling tools like generate_image (creates new) and animate_image (animates), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies usage when an existing image needs modification but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like generate_image, animate_image, or compose_images. No when-not or exclusion criteria are mentioned.

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