cloud_insts_imgs_upd

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states 'Update' but does not clarify whether it performs a partial or full update, what happens to unset fields, or if the operation is destructive. It also omits required permissions, rate limits, or return values. The note about resolving IDs hints at multi-step behavior, but key operational details are missing.

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 front-loads the purpose but then includes a long list of parameter descriptions. The note about resolving IDs is important but blocks together as a paragraph. For 14 parameters, some conciseness is lost, but it remains readable. Could be trimmed by merging redundant phrases (e.g., 'extra_headers' and 'extra_query' definitions).

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?

Despite covering all parameters and ID resolution, the description lacks information on the return value (no output schema), error handling, or permissions. Given the tool's complexity and absence of an output schema, the description should at least hint at what the response contains (e.g., updated image object). It also doesn't place the tool in the broader workflow context relative to sibling tools.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description compensates by explaining each parameter in plain language (e.g., 'hw_firmware_type: Specifies the type of firmware...'). The tags parameter gets a thorough explanation about read-only keys and cost integration. This adds significant value beyond the raw schema, which has no descriptions.

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 opens with 'Update image properties and tags', clearly stating the action and resource. The tool name 'cloud_insts_imgs_upd' aligns with this purpose. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'cloud_insts_imgs_get' or 'cloud_insts_imgs_del', relying on the name and first sentence to imply the update function.

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 detailed instructions on resolving project_id and region_id when not provided, including fallback to defaults. It tells the agent how to prepare the required parameters. However, it does not specify when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., when to update vs. delete), nor does it mention any prerequisites or conditions for use.

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