set_image_border

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It discloses the operation (set/remove border), explains parameters, and describes the return JSON. It implies mutation but doesn't mention side effects or error conditions, which is acceptable for a simple tool.

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 a short, well-structured paragraph with clear argument descriptions and a return line. No wasted words; every sentence adds value.

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 tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers parameters and return fields adequately. It could mention document state modification, but that is implied. Overall, it is sufficient for a focused tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so well by explaining each parameter: rId (relationship ID), border_pt (width in points, 0 to remove), color (hex string without '#', default black). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema titles.

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 clearly states 'Set or remove a border on an embedded image.' It uses a specific verb ('set or remove') and resource ('border on an embedded image'), distinguishing it from sibling image tools like set_image_size or set_image_alt_text.

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 explains how to remove a border (use border_pt=0), providing context for when to use this tool. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives, siblings do not overlap, so it's clear.

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