Update photo album

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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=false, so the description carries most of the burden. It adds the useful 'omit to leave unchanged' semantics and the at-least-one-required rule, but says nothing about permissions, whether the old cover is replaced, or error behavior on a bad albumPath.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the core action stated first and the constraint/cross-reference second. Every clause earns its place.

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?

For a three-parameter mutation with no output schema and a minimal annotation set, the description covers the action, the required-input rule, and how to source a cover UID. The main remaining gap is lack of any note on permissions or failure modes.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters including their omit-to-leave-unchanged behavior. The description reinforces the cross-parameter constraint, which is genuinely additive, but adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource pair ('Rename an album or change its cover photo'), covering both operations the tool performs. It is clearly distinguishable from adjacent siblings like photos_add_to_album or photos_remove_from_album.

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 states the calling constraint explicitly ('At least one of name or coverPhotoUid is required') and routes the agent to photos_list_album_photos to obtain a valid cover nodeUid. It does not spell out when this tool should be preferred over other album-mutating siblings, but the required-parameter guidance is concrete.

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