set_image_alt_text

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses auto-backup behavior across prev/anchor slots, the effect of backup=False, atomic validated saving, and refusal to operate on documents open in Word. This is strong behavioral context, though it could say more about overwriting existing alt text or restoring backups.

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-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The additional behavioral notes are terse and information-dense, with no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and only 0% schema coverage, the description covers the essential invocation path, side effects, and a critical refusal condition. The main gaps are unaddressed parameter semantics and lack of explicit alternative routing, but an agent can still call the tool correctly with what is provided.

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. It explains the source of image_index and the meaning of backup, but file_path, description, and especially the optional title parameter receive no explicit semantic clarification. Some parameters are self-evident, but not all.

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 states a specific action ('Set accessibility alt text for an image') and identifies the resource via 'image_index from list_images'. This clearly distinguishes it from image manipulation siblings like add_image, replace_image, resize_image, and extract_images.

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 a useful pointer that image_index comes from list_images, implying a prerequisite call. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives such as audit_accessibility or fix_accessibility, nor does it mention any exclusions beyond refusing documents open in Word.

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