update_event_image

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Update Event Image' and the endpoint, omitting details about whether the operation is destructive, reversible, or requires authentication. There is no mention of side effects, rate limits, or response behavior.

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 description is concise with two lines. It includes the endpoint which is useful for context but slightly redundant. No superfluous content, but could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating purpose from endpoint). Overall efficient.

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 tool is a mutation with no output schema, so the description should explain return values (e.g., success message, updated resource). It does not. The parameter 'image' is a file path requirement only noted in schema, not in the description. For a complete understanding, additional context is needed.

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 50%: the 'body' parameter includes a description clarifying that file fields must be absolute paths, which adds value. However, 'item_id' lacks description, and nested properties 'image' and 'extension' have only titles. The tool description does not compensate for the missing parameter details beyond what the schema provides.

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 explicitly states 'Update Event Image' which identifies a specific verb and resource. It also includes the HTTP method and endpoint, providing clarity. However, it does not elaborate on what 'update' entails (e.g., replace or add), leaving some ambiguity. Among siblings like 'update_recipe_image' and 'get_recipe_timeline_event_img', the name sufficiently distinguishes it.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'delete_recipe_image' or 'update_recipe_image'. The description does not indicate prerequisites, user permissions, or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone.

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