Bulk Alt-Text aktualisieren

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

With no annotations provided, the description alone must disclose behavioral traits. It conveys that the tool performs mutations (updates) on multiple images, but it fails to mention important details such as whether the operation is reversible, whether partial failures are possible, or any permission requirements. The minimal wording 'Aktualisiert' leaves significant behavioral 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 that directly communicates the tool's purpose. There is no redundant content or unnecessary elaboration, making it highly efficient and front-loaded.

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 simplicity of the tool (one array parameter, no output schema), the description+schema provide adequate functional understanding for basic invocation. However, it lacks information about expected behavior, edge cases, or result handling, leaving room for more context around failed updates or bulk limitations.

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 is fully documented (100% coverage) with clear descriptions for the 'updates' parameter. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, merely confirming that multiple images are affected. Since the schema already defines the structure, the baseline 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 'Aktualisiert Alt-Text für mehrere Bilder' clearly states the action (updates alt-text) and the resource scope (multiple images). It is unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like image_update_meta or image_edit, though it does not explicitly name them as alternatives.

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 image_update_meta for single images or image_find_missing_alt for identifying images lacking alt text. There is no context about prerequisites, limitations, or exclusions.

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