replace_image_creative_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Replace', implying a destructive mutation, but does not explain permissions, reversibility, how the new file is supplied, or what the response will be. This is minimal and leaves significant ambiguity.

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 a single concise sentence with no redundant words. It efficiently communicates the core action and resource. It is appropriately front-loaded, though it might be slightly under-specified, it is not verbose.

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 this is a mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks context about how the file replacement works, prerequisites, potential side effects, and return values. The one-line description is not enough to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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 100% (the only parameter 'id' has type and description), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional meaning about the parameter, and notably does not clarify how the replacement file is passed, which could be a gap. However, since the schema already documents the id parameter sufficiently, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Replace' and the resource 'file on an image creative', which precisely identifies the tool's function. It also distinguishes it from sibling tools like replace_video_creative_file, replace_audio_creative_file, and replace_rich_media_creative_file by specifying 'image creative'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention that this is for image creatives specifically or how it differs from other replace_*_creative_file tools. No exclusions or contextual scenarios are given.

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