add_picture

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Add an image' implies a write/mutation operation, but the description doesn't specify permissions needed, whether the operation is reversible, what happens if the image path is invalid, or any rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that modifies documents.

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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the core purpose immediately.

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 modifies documents (a mutation operation) with no annotations, 3 parameters at 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It should explain parameter meanings, behavioral traits like error handling, and expected outcomes to be complete enough for safe use.

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%, meaning none of the 3 parameters (filename, image_path, width) are documented in the schema. The description adds no information about what these parameters mean, their expected formats, or how they interact (e.g., whether filename refers to the Word document or output file). This fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 ('Add an image') and target resource ('to a Word document'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools that also modify documents (like add_paragraph, add_table, etc.), which prevents a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as other document-modification siblings like add_paragraph or add_table. It lacks any context about prerequisites, constraints, or appropriate scenarios for image insertion.

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