submit_image_edit

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world. The description adds genuinely new context: the call is paid (收费) and asynchronous, uploads via image[], returns a task_id, and must be followed by a query/save step. Cost and the async contract are material facts not carried by 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?

A single dense sentence with the operation and the follow-up contract front-loaded; nothing is padded. The mixed Chinese/English and URL-fragment style ('POST edits?async=true') cost a little clarity for no gain.

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-value detail is not required, and the description does name task_id. However, for an 8-parameter paid async tool with several siblings that also submit or edit images, it omits the sync-vs-async decision and lifecycle guidance an agent needs to call the right 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?

Schema coverage is 75% and the schema descriptions for size, group, model, images, output_dir, and official_options are already detailed. The description only echoes the image[] upload field and adds nothing about the other parameters, so it does not compensate for the remaining gap — baseline 3 applies.

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 (submit an async paid image edit via image[] upload) and notes the return value (task_id) and follow-up step. An agent can distinguish it from submit_image_generation/submit_image_batch, though the terse mixed-language phrasing ('POST edits?async=true') relies on prior knowledge of the API shape.

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?

Implies a workflow — submit, then '查询并落盘' (query then save to disk) — which points at the get_image_task/wait_image_task siblings. But it never explicitly says when to prefer this async submission over the sync edit_image or over submit_image_batch, so the choice among siblings is left to inference.

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