create_step_image

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden and does a good job: it reveals the registration semantics, the C# alias usage pattern, and key operational restrictions (PreImage unavailable for Create, PostImage unavailable for Delete). It stops short of stating side effects such as whether an existing image is overwritten or what return value is produced, so it is not a perfect 5.

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 front-loaded with the one-sentence purpose, followed by compactly organized parameter definitions with examples. Every sentence contributes useful information, and the format is easy to scan without redundancy.

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 tool with five parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides enough context for most use cases: it defines the domain-specific image types, alias behavior, and availability rules. It could be more complete by covering the environment parameter and describing expected return/success behavior, but it is otherwise solid.

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?

Despite a schema description coverage of 0%, the description thoroughly explains four of the five parameters: step_id, attributes, image_type, and alias, including examples and defaults. The environment parameter is not explained, which leaves a small gap; still, this goes well beyond the bare 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Register a pre/post image on an existing step', which clearly identifies the tool's function and distinguishes it from siblings like update_image and delete_image. The purpose is unambiguous and actionable.

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 provides clear usage context by explaining what step_id, attributes, image_type, and alias are used for, and it includes important conditional constraints (PreImage not available for Create, PostImage not for Delete). However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools such as update_image or list_images, so no when-to-use vs. alternatives guidance is given.

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