edit_image

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It explains that images can be supplied as URL or Base64 and that the model generates an edited output based on the prompt. However, it does not mention any limitations, resource costs, or the return format—though the output schema may cover the latter.

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 two sentences followed by a short list of use cases, immediately front-loaded with the purpose. There is no redundant or extraneous wording.

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's complexity (10 parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the core functionality and typical use cases adequately. It does not explain output handling, but the output schema compensates, making the description sufficiently complete for an agent to select 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 input schema has 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all 10 parameters, including seed, size, watermark, and prompt_extend_mode. The description only reiterates the reference image count (1-3) and text instructions, adding little beyond what the schema already provides.

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 identifies the tool as image-to-image editing (I2I) that uses 1-3 reference images combined with text instructions for precise editing. The mention of reference images distinguishes it from the sibling generate_image, which would not require them.

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 description lists concrete use cases (outfit change, background change, style transfer, person-preserving editing) that clarify when this tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly state exclusions or alternative tools, but the I2I definition implies text-to-image should use generate_image.

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