编辑与参考创作

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

Beyond annotations, the description discloses that it saves a new file and returns an absolute path without overwriting the original, and that the call incurs API costs. This adds meaningful behavioral context that annotations alone don't provide, and it doesn't contradict readOnlyHint=false or destructiveHint=false.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by invocation guidance, output behavior, and cost warning. No filler; each sentence adds distinct value.

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?

For a 9-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the critical operational facts: local input requirement, reference-image handling, mask support, non-destructive output, returned absolute path, and cost. The schema handles parameter details, so nothing essential is missing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds useful guidance about clarifying each reference image's role and what to preserve, which maps to images/prompt, but doesn't add detail beyond the already-rich schema for mask, size, format, or quality.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: it reads local images, edits them per prompt, replaces backgrounds, or generates new images from reference style/composition. This clearly differentiates it from the generate_image sibling by requiring local image input and an edit/reference workflow.

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 lists concrete use cases (edit, background replacement, reference-based generation), instructs users to clarify each reference image's role and what to preserve, and notes when to pass a mask for local edits. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the local-image/edit framing makes the appropriate context clear.

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