edit_image

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

Annotations already declare a non-destructive, open-world write operation, so the bar is lower; the description still adds material context: the call is synchronous/blocking, it persists output to disk, and it is billed ('收费'). Permissions or concurrency limits are not covered, but cost and side-effect disclosure go beyond the annotations.

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?

Three short clauses, front-loaded with the core purpose and no filler. It is efficient and readable, though the terse style leaves several questions unanswered rather than balancing brevity with completeness.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the schema documents most parameters. However, for a billed mutation with 8 parameters and an official_options gate, the description omits the async-vs-sync decision and the consequences/placement of written files, leaving it only minimally adequate.

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% and the schema itself carries detailed prose for size, group, model, images, and official_options. The description only echoes the multi-image upload format (calling it image[] where the schema field is 'images') and repeats the Sunburst model advice already present in the model property description, so it adds little.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (synchronous image editing) plus a distinctive behavior (writes result to disk), which separates it from the async submission siblings such as submit_image_edit. It does not explicitly name a sibling, but '同步' clearly contrasts with the submit/poll tools.

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?

Gives one concrete routing hint ('high editing-precision scenarios → Sunburst') and an upload convention for multi-image input, but never says when to prefer this over generate_image or submit_image_edit, nor when-not to use it. Usage is implied by the synchronous nature rather than stated.

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