update_story_image

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it replaces an image, implying a destructive or mutating operation, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether old image is deleted), permission requirements, reversibility, or error behavior. For a mutation tool, this minimal detail is insufficient.

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 single, front-loaded sentence that delivers the core purpose without unnecessary filler. It is efficient, but its brevity comes at the cost of missing crucial context, so it is not exemplary but still appropriately concise relative to the minimal content provided.

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 complexity (5 parameters, nested object, no annotations, no output schema), the description is sorely lacking. It does not explain how the parameters relate (story_id, slot_id, image_path), the role of the viewport object, or what happens after replacement. The description is far from complete for an agent to use it correctly.

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 schema provides no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It only clarifies the meaning of image_id (scoped ID from upload_story_image). The other parameters (story_id, slot_id, image_path, viewport) are left unexplained, and the nested viewport object has no documentation. This is a significant gap for a tool with 5 parameters.

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 action (replace), the resource (Asset Hub image file), and the key input (scoped image ID from upload_story_image). It distinguishes itself from upload_story_image and other sibling tools by specifying an update operation, making the purpose explicit and 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 mentions the prerequisite of using the image ID from upload_story_image, implying this tool is for replacing existing images after a prior upload. It does not explicitly list when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the context from the sibling list and the verb 'replace' provide adequate guidance for an agent to decide when to invoke it.

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