Insert an image web part into a specific SharePoint page section and column using its image URL, with optional alt text and caption.
Add an image web part to a section
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pageId | Yes | ||
| siteId | Yes | ||
| altText | No | ||
| caption | No | ||
| imageUrl | Yes | Image URL | |
| columnIndex | Yes | ||
| sectionIndex | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses nothing: no creation vs modification semantics, no permission/auth needs, no effect on the page layout, no return value.
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?
Extremely short and front-loaded, but the brevity is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The single sentence is efficient yet earns little because it omits critical context.
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?
A mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 6 of 7 parameters undocumented. The description is completely inadequate for an agent to call this correctly, especially given the 5 required parameters and positional sectionIndex/columnIndex semantics.
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 description coverage is 14% – only imageUrl is annotated. The description says nothing about any of the 7 parameters, leaving siteId, pageId, sectionIndex, columnIndex, altText and caption undocumented in both schema and description. It should compensate for the low coverage but does not.
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?
States a specific verb (add) and resource (image web part), and names where it goes (a section). Distinguishable from the sibling add_text_webpart and add_custom_webpart by the web part type, though it doesn't differentiate from them beyond the noun.
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?
No when-to-use vs alternatives guidance. With siblings add_text_webpart and add_custom_webpart, an agent gets no signal about which web part to choose. Prerequisites (page must exist, section must exist) are absent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.