edit_image

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of disclosure. It mentions returning a task id, status, and output URLs, which hints at asynchronous processing, but it does not explain that output URLs may only be available after task completion, how to poll, or whether the operation has side effects (e.g., creating a new image). The safety checker, callback, and polling parameters are not explained.

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 two sentences long and front-loaded with the verb and resource. It contains no unnecessary words, but it sacrifices critical detail for brevity. Every sentence contributes, but the overall structure could be more informative.

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 11 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely insufficient. It lacks guidance on async workflows, parameter values, and edge cases. The existence of sibling tools like get_task suggests a workflow that is not described here.

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 only 18% (model and wait only). The description provides no parameter-specific meaning. The phrase 'edit image' implies the existence of a source image and prompt, but it does not name or explain the required parameters (prompt, source_image_url) or optional behaviors. The description does not compensate for the low coverage.

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 states a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('Qwen 2 task on RunAPI') with the parenthetical '(edit image)' distinguishing it from the sibling text_to_image tool. It also specifies the return value structure, so the agent knows what to expect.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like text_to_image. The name and '(edit image)' imply it is for image-editing tasks, but the description does not state that this tool should be used for editing and text_to_image for generation. No exclusions or preferences are given.

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