Update Image

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

The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the annotations. Annotations already indicate the operation is idempotent and non-destructive. The description lacks details such as whether updates are partial or how labels are merged, which would provide further transparency.

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 (one sentence, 8 words) and front-loaded with the action and resource. It could be slightly more informative (e.g., 'Partially update an image's metadata fields'), but it is efficient and to the point.

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 is adequate for a simple update operation with good annotations and schema coverage. However, it does not explain that updating the type parameter converts the image to a snapshot, or that labels are replaced entirely, leaving some gaps for an agent to understand full behavior.

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 provides full descriptions for all parameters (100% coverage). The description merely lists the fields without adding new meaning or clarifying nuances beyond the schema.

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 action (update) and the resource (image) along with the specific attributes that can be modified (description, type, labels). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like get_image, delete_image, and change_image_protection.

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 implicitly guides usage by listing the modifiable fields, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., change_image_protection). However, the specificity of the resource and attributes makes the usage context clear.

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