set_image_border

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

The description discloses the main behavioral traits: setting or removing a border via 'border_pt' with 0 to remove. It also mentions the default color. However, it does not discuss side effects, error handling, or permissions. Since no annotations are present, the description carries the full burden and is mostly adequate.

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 extremely concise (two sentences plus structured Args/Returns). It front-loads the primary purpose and presents arguments clearly. No extraneous information.

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 simple tool with an output schema (declaring return fields), the description covers the essential aspects: action, arguments, return format. It lacks details on possible errors or conditions, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to use 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It explains 'rId' as the relationship ID, 'border_pt' as width in points (0 removes), and 'color' as RGB hex without '#', default '000000'. This adds significant value over the bare 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?

The description clearly states 'Set or remove a border on an embedded image,' specifying both the action and the resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like set_image_size or set_image_alt_text by focusing solely on borders.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or related tools. The description simply defines the tool without contextual usage advice.

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