Update property Photos

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, openWorld=true and destructive=false; the description adds value beyond them by explaining that removal is by key, that replace is performed as an add-plus-remove combination, and where keys originate. It does not discuss reversibility of removals or note that writes require the confirm flag, leaving a minor tension with destructiveHint=false for an operation that drops images.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the supported operations, then the sibling differentiation, then the parameter guidance. Every sentence contributes and there is no 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?

There is no output schema, so the description needn't explain return values, and it covers the core operations and key semantics well. It is slightly short of complete for a write tool with low schema coverage because it omits the confirm requirement and the file-object shape.

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 low (25%), so the description carries extra burden. It adds real meaning for files (image files) and removeImageKeys (keys sourced from get_property.fields.images), but says nothing about propertyId, the confirm parameter, or the url/base64/fileName shape of file objects, so it only partially compensates for the gap.

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 states a specific resource (a property's Photos gallery) and three concrete operations (add, remove by key, replace via add+remove). It also names the sibling it is not (upload_document) and where image keys come from (get_property under fields.images), so an agent can distinguish it without opening schemas.

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?

It explicitly routes the agent between this tool and upload_document based on destination (Photos vs Documents) and tells the caller what to provide (one or more files and/or removeImageKeys). The when-to-use-vs-alternative condition is stated outright rather than inferred.

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