Update Image

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Update alt text and/or metadata' without revealing that tags and metadata are fully replaced, that the overwrite parameter controls skipping existing language entries, or any permission requirements. This undermines an agent's ability to anticipate side effects of the mutation.

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, 'Update alt text and/or metadata for an existing image', with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action verb and clearly states the target. This is an ideal length for a purpose statement.

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 moderate complexity (6 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, no annotations) and the presence of closely related sibling tools, the description is insufficient. The schema covers parameter details, but the description omits usage context, behavioral nuances, and selection guidance, making it incomplete for an agent to correctly invoke and understand the tool's impact.

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 provides full descriptions for all six parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline applies. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond identifying alt text and metadata, but it does not mention tags, overwrite, or lang. With schema coverage this high, the description need not repeat parameter details, so 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 identifies the tool as updating an existing image, with a specific verb 'Update' and resource 'existing image'. It mentions 'alt text and/or metadata' as updatable fields, which distinguishes it from get, list, and delete operations. However, it omits the tags field and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like translate_image or generate_alt_text, which also modify alt text.

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 versus alternatives such as generate_alt_text, translate_image, or update_account. It lacks any context about prerequisites, use cases, or conditions under which this tool is preferred. With several sibling tools that could modify images, the absence of explicit selection guidance is a notable gap.

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