Update Unsplash Photo

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

It adds valuable behavioral information beyond the annotations: only the fields passed are modified, the operation requires an authenticated owner, and the tool is not read-only. These side effects are more specific than the provided readOnlyHint/destructiveHint annotations, and there is no contradiction.

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 compact and action-first, placing the core purpose before the auth prerequisite and safety note. Each sentence carries meaningful weight without excessive paraphrasing. The only slight redundancy is the final 'Not read-only' because the annotations already communicate this.

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?

The description provides the main operational context: who owns the photo, what can be changed, partial-update semantics, and a concrete login command. The lack of an output response shape prevents a perfect score, and the owner-only constraint could be stated even more explicitly, but the tool is callable with the given guidance.

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?

The input schema already describes all 6 parameters thoroughly, so per-parameter detail is already handled. The description contributes the partial-update semantics and a short field list, but it repeats field names rather than adding new meaning to individual parameters. With 100% coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies an update action on a specific resource type ('photo owned by the authenticated user') and enumerates the exact metadata areas involved. It distinguishes itself from the many read/list/search sibling tools, though it does not name the other update_* tools as near alternatives.

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 gives a clear prerequisite: the user must have OAuth sign-in and provides the concrete command to run first. It conveys that this is a write operation and should not be considered read-only. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with unsplash_update_collection or unsplash_update_my_profile, so it does not reach a five.

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