Update Image

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

The annotations already carry destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety and mutation profile is established outside the description. The description itself adds no behavioral detail such as replacement semantics, overwrite behavior, or side effects, but it does not contradict the annotations either.

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 sentence with no filler, front-loads the primary action, and conveys the core purpose quickly. It is appropriately sized for a straightforward update operation.

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 annotations and fully documented schema, an agent has enough structured information to call the tool correctly. However, the description itself is thin: it does not discuss return behavior, destructive replacement semantics, or relationships to sibling tools, so the surrounding context is only partially complete.

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 100%, and the schema already explains each parameter, including 'Replace tags' and 'Replace metadata'. The description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond naming alt text and metadata, and it omits tags entirely, so it provides no value beyond the structured 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 identifies the action ('update') and resource ('existing image'), and names the main fields ('alt text and/or metadata'). However, the schema also supports updating tags and language/overwrite behavior, so the description undersells the full scope and does not fully distinguish it from sibling tools like generate_alt_text or translate_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 phrase 'for an existing image' implies the tool modifies previously created assets rather than creating new ones, providing some usage context. Still, it gives no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over siblings such as generate_alt_text, translate_image, or delete_image, and no exclusions are stated.

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