update_image

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

No annotations are provided, and the description fully discloses that the tool does not perform a direct PATCH but instead reads, deletes, and recreates the image. It warns that the image ID changes and explains the undocumented platform error, providing exceptional 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 appropriately sized, with each sentence conveying critical information about the workaround, the ID change, and parameter behavior. It is not overly verbose, though the opening quotes around 'Update' are slightly odd.

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 complex tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers the key behavioral caveat, the changed ID, and parameter semantics. It doesn't fully explain the return value or the environment parameter, but it is sufficient for invoking the tool without encountering surprises.

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 0%, and the description compensates by naming the updatable fields (attributes, alias, type) and explaining that omitted parameters retain current values. However, the 'environment' parameter is not explained, and image_id is only implied as the target.

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 it updates attributes, alias, or type of an already-registered pre/post image, using a specific verb and resource. The phrase 'already-registered' differentiates it from create/delete siblings, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies usage for updating existing images but does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives. It focuses on the API workaround rather than providing clear usage context or exclusions, so guidance is only implied.

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