update_user_image

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses only the HTTP method and path. It omits that this is a mutation requiring auth, that it replaces/overwrites the current profile image, that the body is multipart file upload, and any response behavior. The endpoint string is the only extra signal.

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 first portion ('Update User Image — Users: Images. ...') is reasonably front-loaded, but the back half is a ~40-term keyword dump ('update_user_image, update user image, create image, add image... mealie') that duplicates the name and adds nothing. This is significant bloat that hurts signal-to-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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and 2 required parameters of which one is undocumented, the description should do more. It gives the endpoint but leaves out target-user semantics, auth requirements, image replacement behavior, and file-format expectations, so an agent lacks enough to invoke it confidently.

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/profile file is documented in the schema, but the 'id' parameter (uui4) has no description anywhere. The description's keyword list mentions 'users' but never clarifies that id is the target user's UUID or that profile must be an absolute local file path. It adds essentially no meaning beyond the schema.

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 verb+resource ('Updates a User Image') and names the POST endpoint, so the core action is inferable. However, it simultaneously says 'Create image', which muddles whether this creates or replaces an image, and it never distinguishes itself from the sibling get_user_image (its read counterpart). The keyword tail adds noise rather than precision.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus get_user_image or update_user, no prerequisites (authentication, owning the user), and no note about what happens to an existing image. The word 'update' implies replacement, but nothing explicitly guides tool selection.

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