edit_image

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It mentions task creation and return values, but omits key behavior like asynchronous execution, polling/wait semantics, safety checker enablement, potential costs, or permission requirements. This is a notable gap for a task-creating 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, front-loaded sentence that states the action and outcome with no filler. It is efficient and easy to parse, though it could benefit from a bit more detail on usage context.

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 an 8-parameter async task tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is thin. It does not explain how to retrieve the final result (e.g., via get_task or polling), the role of callback_url, or the significance of wait, leaving the agent without enough context to invoke it effectively in complex workflows.

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 75%, so the schema documents most parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but the uncovered parameters (timeout_ms, poll_interval_ms) are self-explanatory. Given the high coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description does not hinder understanding.

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 creates a Grok Imagine task for image editing, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like text_to_image or upscale_image. It also notes the return type (task id, status, output URLs), adding clarity beyond just the name.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it's for editing existing images but does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or preferred scenarios, leaving the agent to infer from the name and sibling context.

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