ai_edit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It reveals cost ($0.15) and tier requirement (Tier 1+), but lacks details on output format, whether edits are destructive, or limits on image sizes.

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 extremely concise: two sentences covering purpose, capability, cost, and tier. No unnecessary words, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, capability, cost, and tier. Missing are output format, error handling, or rate limits, but overall sufficient for basic invocation.

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?

All 5 parameters have clear descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage). The description adds minimal value beyond schema, only hinting at multi-image via 'Supports single and multi-image editing'.

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 'Edit images using AI with natural language prompts' and distinguishes from sibling tools like background_remove or upscale by emphasizing natural language editing and multi-image capability.

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?

It mentions 'Supports single and multi-image editing' and cost/tier, but does not explicitly compare to alternatives like inpaint or background_remove, leaving the agent to infer when to use this tool.

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