update_store_product_image

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the partial update behavior and that it mutates data, which aligns with annotations and provides useful context beyond them.

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, well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns), and front-loaded with the essential purpose. Every sentence adds value, and there is no unnecessary information.

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 5 parameters and an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage context, parameter details, and return type. It addresses the partial update behavior and integration scenarios, making it complete for effective use.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description provides meaningful explanations for store_id, product_id, image_id, and additional_fields. It includes examples (url, variant_ids) and how to obtain store_id. Only the 'account' parameter is not described.

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 an image attached to a product in an e-commerce store.' It uses a specific verb (update) and resource (product image), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_store_product_image and delete_store_product_image.

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 explains that only fields in additional_fields are changed (partial update) and provides context about manual vs automatic sync for different store types. It also tells how to obtain the store_id. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or alternatives.

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