updateImagePath

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'update' and 'verify' but doesn't specify what verification entails, whether this is a destructive operation, what permissions are required, error handling, or what happens if the component doesn't exist. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient behavioral context.

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 with a single sentence that states the core functionality. It's front-loaded with the primary action ('update') and includes the verification aspect. While efficient, it could potentially be more structured with separate purpose and behavior statements.

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 mutation tool with 2 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what verification means, what format the paths should be in, what happens on success/failure, or how this differs from other update operations. The context demands more comprehensive documentation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions 'componentPath' and 'newImagePath' implicitly but provides no details about format, constraints, or what these parameters represent. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond what can be inferred from parameter names alone.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('update') and resource ('image path for an image component'), and mentions verification. It distinguishes from generic 'updateComponent' by focusing specifically on image paths. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other image-related tools like 'getPageImages' or 'updateAsset'.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'updateComponent' or 'updateAsset'. It mentions verification but doesn't specify prerequisites, error conditions, or when this specific tool is preferred over more general update tools. No explicit when/when-not statements are present.

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