set_card_image

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining side effects. It discloses that imageUrlOrPath can be a local file (embedded) or a URL, and mentions fit options, but does not mention permissions, reversibility, or impact on existing visuals. The instruction to verify in Desktop adds a practical note but not a full behavioral picture.

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, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every phrase earns its place (target, parameter clarification, fit values, verification). No waste or filler.

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 there is no output schema or annotations, the description covers the core purpose and parameter meanings but misses broader context like prerequisites (must be a cardVisual), side effects on existing images, and whether the action is reversible. It is adequate for a simple setter but not fully 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 coverage is 80%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description mostly reiterates schema text (e.g., 'local file (embedded) or an http(s)/data URL' matches the schema). It does not add deeper meaning beyond the schema, such as accepted formats or constraints.

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 specific action: 'Set a hero/callout IMAGE on a cardVisual (the new card's image element).' It names the exact resource (cardVisual) and distinguishes from sibling tools like set_image_source or add_image by specifying the 'new card's image element' and 'hero/callout' context.

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 implies usage for cardVisual image setting but does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives. It includes a practical instruction 'Verify the render in Desktop' but lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons to similar visual tools, so it only vaguely guides selection.

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