edit_image

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

The description indicates that the tool creates a task and returns a task id, implying asynchronous behavior, but does not explicitly state that it is non-blocking or explain the polling mechanism, despite parameters for wait, timeout, and poll_interval. No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. The edit operation's impact (e.g., whether original images are modified) is not addressed.

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 sentence that front-loads the main purpose. It is concise and avoids unnecessary words. However, it could benefit from additional structure, such as separating the task creation, return values, and parameter hints.

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 has 9 parameters, no required fields, and no output schema, the description is too brief. It does not explain the editing process, what source_image_urls expects, how output quality works, or how to interpret the returned task id. The description leaves significant gaps for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.

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 description adds no information about the 9 parameters beyond what is in the schema. Only 2 of the 9 parameters have descriptions in the schema (wait and model). The description mentions outputs but does not clarify parameter usage, such as source_image_urls format or the meaning of aspect_ratio, output_quality, etc. With 22% schema coverage, the description should compensate but fails to do so.

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 it creates a Seedream task for editing an image and returns task id, status, and output URLs. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool text_to_image, which also creates tasks but for generation. The verb 'edit image' is specific but lacks detail on the type of edit (e.g., inpainting).

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like text_to_image. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or situations where this tool is preferred or should be avoided. The description omits any usage context.

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