update_image

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

The description discloses that the operation is in-place and preserves dimensions/position, but no annotations are provided. It does not mention error handling, permissions, or what happens on failure. With zero annotation coverage, the description carries full burden but provides only minimal behavioral context.

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-loaded with the main action, and includes a clear parameter list. Every sentence is useful and there is no redundancy or verbosity.

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 existence of an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the primary behavior and parameters adequately. Minor omission: no mention of potential errors or prerequisites, but overall it is sufficient for a simple mutation tool.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, but the description adds meaningful context for both parameters ('rId' and 'new_image_path'), explaining their purpose beyond the schema's type and title. This compensates well for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 that the tool replaces the binary of an existing image in-place, preserving dimensions and position. This specific verb and resource effectively distinguish it from sibling tools like insert_image and delete_image.

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 implies usage for updating an existing image by mentioning 'replace the binary for an existing image'. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., insert_image), nor provide exclusions or prerequisites.

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