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 does usefully disclose that it uses fal or OpenAI, requires the matching provider key, and returns a path to the edited image. However, it does not state whether the original image is overwritten or a new file is created, which is a meaningful side-effect gap for an editing 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?

Three concise sentences front-load the core purpose and examples, then add provider, key, and return-value info. There is no redundant or filler content; every sentence earns its place.

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 4-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool does, example inputs, provider options, key prerequisite, and the return type. It does not explicitly point to set_provider_key as the way to configure the required key, but the core information needed to invoke the tool is present.

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 100%, so the structured schema already documents all parameters, which sets the baseline at 3. The description adds helpful illustrative prompt examples and the provider key requirement, but it does not materially deepen parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 identifies the operation as 'Edit an existing image using a text instruction' with concrete examples such as 'make the background blue'. This distinguishes it from sibling image tools like generate_image, remove_background, and replace_background because the defining trait is natural-language editing of an existing image.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: when an existing local image needs to be modified based on a text prompt. It does not explicitly name alternative siblings or state when not to use them, but the examples and 'existing image' qualifier give sufficient situational guidance.

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