vibo_set_profile_photo

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

The description discloses important behavioral traits beyond annotations: the tool is confirm-gated (returns preview without confirm), and the parameter usage depends on server type. Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false (mutation), which aligns with the description. No contradictions.

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 concise (3 sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence provides value: purpose, parameter differentiation, return type, and confirmation behavior. No unnecessary words.

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 has 4 parameters (all well-described in schema) and no output schema, the description covers essential aspects: purpose, parameter selection by server, return value, and confirm-gating. It is complete for an agent to correctly select and invoke the tool.

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 has 100% description coverage for all 4 parameters. The description adds meaningful context: which parameters apply to which server, the role of confirm (proceed vs preview), and default filename for fileData. This enhances understanding beyond the schema alone.

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 tool's purpose: 'Set your Vibo profile photo from an image.' It explains two methods (local path vs base64) based on server type, mentions the return value (uploaded image URL), and notes the confirmation gate. This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools, which are unrelated.

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 explicit guidance on when to use each parameter: 'On the local (stdio) server pass a local file `path`; on the hosted connector pass the image bytes as base64 `fileData`.' It also notes that confirm must be true to proceed. While it doesn't list when not to use or alternative tools, the sibling tools are all unrelated, so this is sufficient.

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