update_image

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that dimensions and position are preserved, but fails to mention potential side effects (e.g., file format compatibility, error handling) or how the replacement affects the document state.

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 only two sentences plus parameter explanations. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and lacks any fluff.

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 simple two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the main behavior and parameters but omits prerequisites, error conditions, and supported formats. It is adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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?

The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining both parameters: rId as the relationship ID and new_image_path as an absolute path. With 0% schema description coverage, this compensation is valuable.

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 'Replace the binary for an existing image in-place,' which is a specific verb+resource action. It distinguishes from sibling tools like insert_image and delete_image by specifying it updates an existing image.

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 implies use when you want to replace an image's content while preserving dimensions/position, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives. It lacks contextual guidance such as prerequisites.

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