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

The description discloses meaningful behavioral details beyond the annotations: it is a partial/patch update ('Only the fields you pass change'), it lists settings that cannot be changed via the API, and it states the response is the updated images section. It also adds the website_id scoping nuance. There is no contradiction with the readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, or destructiveHint annotations.

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 information-dense sentences with no filler: field list, partial-update semantics, in-app-only restrictions, return value, and website_id caveat. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important scoping 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 the 7-parameter complexity and the presence of annotations plus an output schema, the description is complete enough for correct invocation. It covers which fields can be updated, which cannot, when website_id is required, and what is returned. No critical invocation context 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 description coverage is only 43%, but the description compensates by naming and explaining every parameter: cover and inline image styles with valid style values, brand color, cover and inline image instructions, inline images per post range (0-3), and the website_id condition. It also clarifies partial-update semantics, which is critical for understanding how parameters interact.

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: 'Partially updates the Images settings tab' and enumerates the exact updatable fields (styles, brand color, instructions, inline images per post). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like update_general_settings and update_content_settings. It does not merely restate the tool's name.

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 provides clear context: this tool is for the Images settings tab and includes a when-not condition by noting that brand logo, AI images vs media library choice, and media variations can only be changed in the app. It also gives the conditional website_id guideline ('Pass website_id when the account has several websites') and points to get_account. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives for non-image settings, but the context is unambiguous.

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