update_photos

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotations by stating that the full array is required and that photos are replaced/reordered. This implies the operations are not partial updates, which is valuable information not captured by the annotation fields. There is no contradiction with the provided annotations.

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, consisting of two short sentences that are front-loaded with the purpose and immediately followed by the critical usage instruction. Every word adds value, with no redundant or vague language.

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 simple update tool with complete schema coverage and annotations, the description is largely sufficient. It communicates the core action and the full-array requirement. The absence of an output schema is not a gap because return values are not typically critical for this simple function. It could mention the idempotent nature, but that is already covered by annotations.

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 input schema already covers the parameters (listingId and photos) with descriptions. The description adds meaning by clarifying that the photos array must contain the full set in desired order, which is key semantic information beyond the schema's property descriptions. This is a useful addition to the schema documentation.

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 the tool's function with specific verbs: 'Replace or reorder photos for a listing.' It identifies the resource (photos for a listing) and distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_photos (read-only) and update_calendar (different resource). The purpose is unambiguous.

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 provides clear usage context: 'Provide the full array of photos in desired order' is a critical instruction that tells the agent exactly how to invoke the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, so it falls short of full explicit guidance.

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