replace_image

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses auto-backup behavior, the effect of backup=False, atomic validated saving, and refusal to operate on documents open in Word. Some details like 'prev/anchor slots' and 'rotation only' remain somewhat cryptic, but the key behavioral traits are surfaced.

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 compact and front-loads the core action. The backup and refusal clauses are dense and information-rich, though the phrasing is occasionally jargon-heavy and might confuse an agent about what 'rotation only' means.

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 covers the main operation, backup behavior, and a key precondition (document not open in Word). However, with no annotations and no parameter-level guidance, an agent still has to infer important semantics for image_index and new_image_path, making the definition not fully complete for a mutation tool.

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 all four parameters. It only meaningfully explains backup behavior; file_path, image_index, and new_image_path are left to name inference and are not defined or contextualized beyond the phrase 'Swap an image's file.'

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: swapping an image's file while preserving placement and display size. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like resize_image, add_image, and extract_images, which serve different purposes.

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 makes the intended context clear: replace an existing image's underlying file without changing its layout. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the contrast with resize_image and add_image is strongly implied.

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