edit_asset

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It describes the knd of edits supported but not whether the original asset is replaced, what gets returned, or any constraints/limitations of Nano Banana Pro. It does not contradict any annotations because none are present, but it leaves important operational behavior underspecified.

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 action and object, then expands with a concise list of supported edits. 'And more' is mildly vague but does not inflate the description or waste space.

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?

The tool is moderately complex with no output schema and no annotations, so the description should cover the output/response behavior and any crucial side effects. It does not say what the edited asset result is or whether the source is modified in place. The rich schema compensates for parameter understanding but not for the missing behavioral contract.

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%, so the schema already explains all five parameters, including the purpose of sourceImage, editInstructions, resolution, aspectRatio, and preserveElements. The description adds general capability context but not parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 3 is 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 uses a specific verb-and-resource structure: 'Edit an existing asset', and the resource is clearly distinguished from the sibling generation tools. The listed capabilities (lighting, focus, camera transformations) make the purpose tangible, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with ensure_brand_consistency.

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 phrase 'existing asset' implies this tool is for modification rather than generation, giving some implicit guidance against the generate siblings. However, it never explicitly states when to prefer this tool over generate_asset, generate_asset_pack, or ensure_brand_consistency, so the routing decision is mostly left to inference.

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