edit_image

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the return of a task ID, status, and output URLs, but fails to cover important aspects such as the asynchronous nature of task creation, the need for polling (evident from parameters like 'wait' and 'poll_interval_ms'), authentication requirements, or rate limits. The description is insufficient for an agent to anticipate the tool's full behavior.

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, succinct sentence that communicates the core action and return values without extraneous detail. It front-loads the purpose ('Create a GPT Image 2 task') and efficiently includes the parenthetical clarification. Every word adds value.

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 (8 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is woefully incomplete. It does not address the editing workflow, the meaning of output fields, or the interplay between parameters. The agent lacks critical context to use the tool 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?

The input schema has 8 parameters, with only 2 having descriptions (25% coverage). The tool description adds no parameter-level information, failing to compensate for the low schema coverage. The description does not explain the role of key parameters like 'prompt', 'source_image_urls', or 'aspect_ratio' in the editing context, leaving the agent without necessary guidance.

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 that the tool creates a GPT Image 2 task for editing images, using the verb 'Create' and the resource 'GPT Image 2 task'. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'text_to_image', which likely generates images. The parenthetical 'edit image' hints at the distinction but lacks explicit comparison.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'text_to_image' or 'get_task'. It omits any prerequisites, context, or conditions for appropriate usage, leaving the agent without decision-support information.

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