insert_image

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 mentions that images are 'included in a package,' which adds some context about side effects, but fails to detail permissions needed, whether the operation is destructive, rate limits, or what the response looks like. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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, efficient sentence that is front-loaded with the core action. There is no wasted language, making it appropriately concise and well-structured for its purpose.

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 tool's complexity as a mutation operation with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, parameter usage, and expected outcomes, making it inadequate for safe and effective use by an AI agent.

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 low at 25%, with only 'path' having a description. The tool description does not add meaning beyond the schema, as it doesn't explain parameters like 'alt_text', 'height', or 'width'. However, with 4 parameters and minimal schema coverage, the description doesn't compensate adequately, warranting a baseline score.

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 action ('inserts local images into documents') and the resource ('documents'), specifying that images are local and will be included in a package. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'insert_paragraph' or 'insert_table' beyond mentioning images specifically.

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 like 'insert_paragraph' or 'insert_table', nor are there any prerequisites or exclusions mentioned. The description implies usage for inserting images but lacks contextual direction.

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