update_event_image

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden and largely drops it. 'Replace (full update)' usefully signals that the existing image is overwritten rather than patched, but nothing is said about permissions/auth, what happens to the previous image, size or format limits, or the response. For a write tool with zero annotation coverage this is a substantial gap.

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 functional content is two short front-loaded sentences, but a long comma-delimited keyword dump ('update_event_image, update event image, ... mealie.') is appended that adds no selection or invocation value. Roughly half the text is search-bait noise.

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 mutation endpoint with no annotations, no output schema, and partial parameter documentation, the description should explain auth requirements, replacement consequences, and the upload mechanics. It supplies the endpoint path and full-replace semantics and nothing more.

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 50%: the body field documents that file fields must be absolute local paths, but item_id (a uuid4) and the required 'extension' field get no explanation anywhere. The description adds no parameter detail at all, so it fails to compensate for the uncovered half.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Update Event Image', 'Replace (full update) image') and scopes it to 'Recipe: Timeline' with the concrete endpoint PUT /api/recipes/timeline/events/{item_id}/image, which separates it from generic image updaters. The sibling set contains update_recipe_image and update_user_image, but the description never explicitly names them or states the distinction beyond the resource scope.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and the obvious alternative siblings (update_recipe_image, update_user_image, recipe_timeline_update_one) are never mentioned. Only the endpoint path and 'Recipe: Timeline' implicitly convey the context, and '(full update)' hints at replacement versus partial, but the agent must infer everything else.

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