edit_image

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does so thoroughly: it discloses cost per edit, output size, API key requirement, key provider distinction, and free-credit availability. It also flags the operational constraint that the input image must be publicly reachable. This is substantial, non-obvious behavioral context.

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 purpose is front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place: operation, input requirements, cost/output size, and authentication details. Despite packing in several details, the description remains tight and readable with no filler.

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 definition is largely complete for invocation: inputs, cost, auth, output size, and URL constraints are all covered. Since there is no output schema, stating what the tool returns (e.g., an edited image URL or binary) would close the remaining gap, but the current description still gives the agent enough to call the tool correctly.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description loosely restates image_url as 'publicly reachable image URL' and prompt as 'description of the change', but adds no meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Aspect_ratio is absent from the description and is already fully documented in the schema.

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 plus resource: 'edit an existing image', and enumerates allowed operations ('change, add, remove or restyle parts of it while keeping the rest'). This clearly differentiates the tool from its sibling generate_image, which is for creating new images.

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 intended use context is clear: edit an existing publicly reachable image with a prompt describing the change. It also states prerequisites like needing a public URL and a you.bot API key. However, it does not explicitly direct the agent to generate_image for new images or check_credits for balance inquiries, so exclusions are implied rather than stated.

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