add_image

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

With no annotations, the description supplies useful behavioral context: auto-backup to .ks4w-backups, backup parameter effect, atomic validated save, and refusal of Word-open documents. However, the meaning of 'prev/anchor slots' and 'rotation only' is cryptic.

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 short and front-loads purpose in the first sentence, with additional behavior in a compact second line. The compressed 'rotation only' phrase and jargon ('prev/anchor slots') sacrifice clarity for brevity.

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 an 8-parameter tool with no annotations and no schema descriptions, the description leaves significant gaps—placement parameters, default positioning, and parameter interactions are not explained. The output schema covers return values, but the call semantics are incomplete.

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 explains only backup behavior and indirectly width via aspect ratio. Parameters like after_index, after_anchor, at_end, and alignment remain undocumented, leaving placement semantics unexplained.

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 uses a specific verb ('Insert') and resource ('inline image'), names supported formats, and adds the aspect-ratio behavior. It distinguishes add_image from siblings like resize_image and replace_image by operation, though it doesn't name them explicitly.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or alternative routing is provided; the agent must infer from 'Insert' that this is for adding a new image rather than resizing or replacing. It gives a usable constraint (refuses Word-open documents) but doesn't tell when to prefer replace_image or list_images.

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