pipedrive_update_product_image

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

Annotations show idempotentHint: true, which is consistent with the 'replace' behavior. The description discloses that file_path is read by the server and disabled by default, adding critical behavioral context beyond the annotations (which lack destructiveHint).

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 three sentences: purpose, input methods, and a crucial caveat about server-side configuration. Every sentence adds essential information without redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description covers the input parameters thoroughly and addresses behavioral constraints. It lacks explicit return value information, but for an update tool, the primary purpose is well-covered.

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 schema has 100% description coverage. The description adds value by explicitly stating the mutual exclusivity rule for file_path and base64_data, clarifying the exactly-one requirement, and noting supported formats (png, jpeg, gif, webp) – information not fully captured in the 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 states 'Update (replace) the image of a product,' specifying the verb 'update/replace' and the resource 'product image'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like pipedrive_upload_product_image and other product-related tools.

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 explicitly tells the agent to provide the image via either file_path or base64_data (exactly one required) and warns that file_path is disabled by default unless PIPEDRIVE_IMAGE_BASE_DIR is set. It suggests using base64_data as the transport-safe alternative, giving clear usage context.

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