set_image_border

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavior. It mentions 'set or remove' (mutation) and the return value, but omits details like whether the operation is undoable, if the image must exist, or if borders are replaced or added cumulatively.

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 concise, front-loading the purpose in the first sentence, followed by structured parameter explanations and return type. No extraneous information is present.

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?

The description covers the core function and parameters adequately for a simple tool, but lacks broader context such as the need for the image to already be inserted or confirmation that the border is applied immediately. The return format is documented, partially compensating for the missing output schema.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description bears full responsibility. It explains rId as 'relationship ID', border_pt as 'width in points', and color as 'RGB hex without #' with a clear default. This adds meaningful context 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Set or remove a border on an embedded image.' This specific verb-object pair distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_image_size or set_image_alt_text, leaving no ambiguity.

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?

While the description explains the function, it does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., set_image_size for resizing). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, so it meets a minimal threshold but lacks explicit context.

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