update_image

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds the PATCH endpoint, which implies a partial update, but it does not state whether omitted fields are preserved, whether the change is reversible, or that only custom images are eligible. No contradiction with the 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?

Very short and front-loaded with the action and target. The second sentence largely restates the first ('Update name of the custom image'), so one of the two sentences does not earn its place.

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 mutation tool with a nested body and no output schema, the essentials are present via annotations and the fully described schema. However, the description leaves open whether description is updatable and what a successful response contains, which matters for a PATCH on a nested object.

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 100%, so imageId, body.name and body.description are already documented, making 3 the baseline. The description adds a small hint that imageId identifies the target ('by its id') but omits the description field entirely, so it adds no real meaning beyond the schema.

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 and resource ('Update custom image name by its id'), which is enough to distinguish it from retrieve_image, delete_image, and create_custom_image. The scope is slightly muddled: it claims to update the 'name' only, while the request body also accepts a description, leaving the agent unsure how much of the image is mutable.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus create_custom_image, delete_image, or retrieve_image, and no mention of prerequisites such as owning a custom (non-system) image. The agent must infer the usage context entirely from the name and HTTP path.

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