d365_plugin_image_register

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false; the description adds meaningful context beyond them: the mandatory preview-fingerprint gate before a destructive write, validation of stage/message and overlapping aliases, and the dry-run-first intent. It stops short of describing irreversibility or result shape, but the safety path is clearly disclosed and consistent with the destructive annotation.

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?

Five short sentences, each carrying distinct information (capability, supported steps, validation, write gate, exclusions), with the core purpose front-loaded. A few phrases such as 'explicit readable fields' are slightly opaque but not wasteful.

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 destructive mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the write gate, validation behavior, and scope exclusions adequately. It could say more about what a preview returns (the fingerprint object) and the meaning of the 13 parameters, but the operational essentials are present.

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 low (31%) across 13 params, so the description must compensate. It does add conceptual meaning for image_type (Pre/Post/Both), attributes (explicit readable fields), entity_alias (entity-specific), and expected_fingerprint (required to write), but leaves name, description, step_id, and the alias duality unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb pair (Preview/register) and resource (native Pre/Post/Both image) plus the scope of supported steps (Create, Update, Delete, Assign, SetState). It is readily distinguishable from siblings like d365_plugin_image_update and d365_plugin_image_delete.

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 two-phase workflow is explicit: preview first, then write requires a preview fingerprint. It also scopes out what it does NOT do (no assembly upload, no automatic publication). It does not explicitly say when to use this versus d365_plugin_image_update, leaving that to inference.

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