edit_image_nano

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It only lists features and makes an inaccurate claim of 'all four models' when the schema contains eight model enums. It does not disclose save behavior, overwrite risks, or output details.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Each clause adds a relevant capability, and it is appropriately sized for the tool's scope.

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 10 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, so the description must compensate. It fails to explain mode selection (single vs. batch), how to choose between imagePath/requests, or what the tool returns—leaving significant gaps for a complex tool.

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%, so the structured fields already document every parameter. The description adds minimal meaning beyond naming feature areas like resolution and aspect ratio, which the schema already covers.

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 the tool edits images ('编辑图像') and specifies single or batch scope. It mentions key capabilities (all models, multi-reference, resolution/aspect ratio) that distinguish it from sibling generation or conversion tools.

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 clearly implies editing existing images rather than generating new ones, and explicitly notes single/batch usage. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of full guidance.

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