edit_image_pro_flash

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses key constraints: the source canvas never grows or resizes, reference art must fit, and it runs as a background job. It also references capabilities for size limits, adding practical context beyond the schema.

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 sentences with no redundancy. The main purpose is front-loaded, followed by constraints and operational notes. Every sentence adds meaningful information.

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 description covers the essential operational aspects: what it does, methods, canvas constraints, background execution, and a pointer to capabilities for sizes. It does not explain the return format (no output schema), but the background job pattern is consistent with siblings and the schema covers parameters. Overall adequate for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the two method modes and the canvas constraint that the schema does not explicitly convey (e.g., reference_image must fit the canvas). This enriches understanding of the method and reference_image parameters.

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 verb 'edit', the resource 'one image', and the engine 'Pro Flash', while distinguishing between the two methods (text vs reference). It also implies a distinction from siblings like inpaint_image_pro_flash (inpainting) and create_image_pro_flash (creation) by focusing on editing.

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?

It provides clear context: use this tool for Pro Flash editing at native sizes, with either text or reference, and it runs as a background job. It also points to get_pro_flash_capabilities for size validation. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, which is a minor gap given the large sibling set.

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