Update image resize settings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description's only addition is the redundant '[WRITE]' tag and the PATCH endpoint; it does not disclose permissions required, what enabling/disabling changes, or any side effects. Minimal value beyond the structured 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?

It is a single terse line that front-loads the '[WRITE]' marker and endpoint, so it is compact. But the compression sacrifices clarity: 'Offline FA (cdn/acceleration)' is unexplained jargon that occupies space without informing the agent.

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 low-complexity two-parameter toggle with no output schema and safety covered by annotations, the endpoint and example are roughly the minimum an agent needs. Still, it omits the meaning of the required domain parameter and any effect description, leaving the definition barely adequate.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, but it only supplies an example payload {'status':'on'} and a '{domain}' path placeholder. It never explains what 'domain' refers to (the target domain to configure) or what on/off toggling actually does, leaving both parameters under-specified relative to the coverage 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 pairs the verb '[WRITE]' with the image-resize resource via the endpoint path, and the title confirms 'Update image resize settings'. However, the prose is dominated by opaque jargon ('Offline FA (cdn/acceleration)') that does not tell the agent plainly what the operation does (toggling image resize per domain). The purpose is recoverable mainly from the name/title and endpoint, not from a clear statement.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives among the many sibling update_* settings tools (update_caching_settings, update_ssl_settings, update_acceleration, etc.). The agent gets an endpoint but nothing about which conditions should route it here versus elsewhere.

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