edit_image

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

No annotations are provided, so the description should cover behavioral traits. It mentions providers and 'none configured' but does not disclose whether edits are destructive, if the original is preserved, or what happens on failure. Key mutability and safety information is missing.

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 short and front-loaded. The second sentence about 'Available: none configured' is ambiguous and may confuse agents, slightly reducing conciseness. Otherwise efficient.

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?

With 5 parameters, nested objects, and multiple providers, the description lacks details on providerOptions, outputDirectory behavior, and what happens when no providers are configured. Output schema absence increases need for description, which is insufficient.

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% with descriptions for all parameters. The tool description adds little beyond restating path and prompt, and listing providers already described in schema. Baseline 3 appropriate.

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 existing images using AI, with specific references to providing a path and prompt. It distinguishes from sibling tools like generate_image which create new images.

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 for editing existing images but does not explicitly exclude create-focused tools or mention when to use alternatives. It lacks guidance on prerequisites or context.

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