gemini_edit_image

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool 'supports session history references' and 'image consistency features,' which adds useful context about how it interacts with session state. However, it doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like whether edits are destructive to the original image, authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens when output_path isn't provided (beyond the schema's description). The description adds some value but leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Edit or modify existing images based on prompts') and adds two key features. There's no wasted verbiage, and every clause adds value. It could be slightly more structured by separating core purpose from features, but it's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 the tool's complexity (7 parameters, mutation operation, no annotations, no output schema), the description is moderately complete. It covers the core purpose and hints at session integration, but it lacks details on behavioral outcomes, error handling, or what the tool returns. Without annotations or output schema, the description should do more to explain the mutation's effects and results, but it provides a basic foundation.

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%, meaning all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what's already in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain how 'edit_prompt' interacts with 'reference_images' or clarify the 'conversation_id' usage). With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description doesn't compensate with additional insights.

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's purpose as editing or modifying existing images based on prompts, which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'gemini_generate_image' (which likely creates new images) or 'get_image_history' (which retrieves but doesn't edit). The description mentions session history references and image consistency features, which adds specificity but not explicit sibling differentiation.

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 context through mentions of session history references ('last' or 'history:N') and image consistency features, suggesting this tool is for iterative editing within a session. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'gemini_generate_image' for new images or 'clear_conversation' for session management. No when-not-to-use scenarios or prerequisites are mentioned.

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