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

Annotations already declare destructive, non-idempotent, open-world; the description adds the substance behind that - existing card images are replaced, input formats are converted to WebP, and uploads land as private custom images. It stops short of covering permissions, size limits, or partial-failure behavior across a multi-entry batch.

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?

Three sentences, no filler, with the core action first, the negative constraint second, and the format/write semantics last. Every sentence carries distinct information.

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 destructive batch mutation with an output schema present, the description covers intent, image sourcing, conversion, replacement, and the dry-run switch. The one missing piece is what targetLang and the top-level collection fields mean, which matters for correct 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?

Schema coverage is only 40%, and the description compensates for the image-source fields by explaining that each entry carries exactly one of imageBase64, dataUri, or imageUrl and that imageUrl is server-downloaded. However, top-level targetLang, collectionUuid, and collectionTitle get no explanation in either schema or description, leaving a real gap.

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 states a specific verb and resource - 'Attaches supplied images to existing Lingard cards' - and immediately rules out the adjacent capability ('It does not generate images'). No sibling tool does image attachment, so a reader can place it unambiguously.

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 gives a clear usage context: images must be supplied as base64/dataUri/url, and 'commit=true writes' implies the default is a dry run. It doesn't name a sibling alternative when a card is missing or when this should be preferred over other card-editing tools, but the when-to-use framing is solid.

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