vibo_set_profile_photo

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint: false (a write operation). The description adds meaningful behavioral context by mentioning 'Confirm-gated' and that it 'Returns the uploaded image URL'. This goes beyond the annotation by disclosing the confirmation requirement and return value, though it does not explicitly explain the preview behavior without confirmation (covered in the schema).

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 two sentences: the first states the purpose, the second explains input options and output. There is no redundant wording, and it is front-loaded with the most important information. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a file-upload tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential elements: purpose, input method selection, return value, and confirmation gating. It lacks an explicit mention that without `confirm=true` the tool returns a preview, but the schema parameter description provides that detail, so overall completeness is high but not maximal.

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 coverage is 100%, so a baseline of 3 applies. The description adds value by explaining the decision rule between `path` and `fileData` based on filesystem sharing, and clarifies that `fileData` is base64-encoded image bytes. This semantic context is not present in the schema itself.

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 begins with 'Set your Vibo profile photo from an image', which uses a specific verb ('Set') and resource ('Vibo profile photo'), clearly stating the tool's core purpose. It distinguishes itself from all sibling tools, none of which relate to profile photo changes, making its function unambiguous.

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 clear guidance on when to use `path` versus `fileData`: use `path` if the server shares the filesystem, otherwise use `fileData`. This is practical context for tool selection. It does not mention alternatives because no sibling tool serves the same purpose, so the lack of explicit 'when-not-to-use' is acceptable.

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