Обновление образа

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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only, non-destructive operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context by specifying that only name and description are updatable, while OS, location, and disk_id are immutable. This goes beyond the annotation flags and clarifies the tool's actual side effects and limitations.

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 a single, concise sentence that immediately states the action and resource, then adds a crucial constraint in a second clause. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or repetition.

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 simple update tool with only three parameters fully described in the schema and safety profile covered by annotations, the description is adequate. It specifies the extent of changes and what cannot be changed. The lack of an output schema is not a significant gap given the straightforward nature of the operation.

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 coverage is 100%, with each parameter (name, image_id, description) already having a description. The tool description mentions 'name and/or description' but does not add new information beyond the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the full parameter semantics.

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 the tool updates the name and/or description of an image, using the specific verb 'Обновляет' and identifying the resource ('образа'). It also explicitly lists non-modifiable attributes (ОС, локация, disk_id), which distinguishes it from update tools for other resources.

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 provides clear context on what this tool does and explicitly states which attributes cannot be changed, helping the agent avoid misuse. It does not name alternative tools, but the uniqueness of 'update_image' among siblings makes usage obvious. The exclusion of specific attributes serves as practical guidance for when to use this tool.

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