edit_image

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses behavioral traits: returns a new interaction_id for iteration, limits for reference_images (up to 14, with model-specific constraints), and that the output format is determined by file extension. It does not mention destructive behavior but editing images typically implies modification.

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 moderately concise and well-structured. It front-loads the core purpose, then explains two distinct usage modes, and ends with a prompt tip. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly tighter.

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 10 parameters and no output schema, the description covers key behaviors: iteration flow, reference image limits, and prompt style. It could mention that output size defaults to 1K and model defaults to flash, but these are in the schema. Overall, it provides sufficient context for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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 90%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond schema by explaining the recommended workflow (previous_interaction_id) and specific use cases for reference_images. It also provides a prompt tip that enhances understanding of how to craft effective prompts.

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 starts with 'Edit or iterate on an image with a follow-up prompt,' clearly stating the core function. It distinguishes from siblings like generate_image (which likely generates from scratch) by emphasizing iterative editing and providing specific use cases like virtual try-on and product placement.

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 explicit guidance on when to use each mode: use previous_interaction_id for multi-turn editing (recommended) or reference_images for specific tasks. It also includes a prompt tip. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives.

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