bookstack_images_update

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool updates image details or replaces content, implying a mutation operation, but lacks critical behavioral details: it doesn't specify required permissions, whether changes are reversible, error conditions, or what happens to unspecified fields. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in 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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose ('Update an image's details'), though it could be slightly more structured by separating the two update types (details vs. content replacement). Overall, it's concise and wastes no space.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (a mutation operation with 4 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like permissions, side effects, or response format, which are crucial for safe and effective use. The description alone is inadequate for an agent to fully understand how to invoke this tool correctly in context.

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 100%, meaning all parameters (id, name, image, uploaded_to) are documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'name' and 'image content' as examples, but doesn't provide additional context like format constraints or usage nuances. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Update an image's details such as name or replace the image content.' It specifies the verb ('update'), resource ('image'), and scope of updates ('details such as name or replace the image content'), which distinguishes it from siblings like bookstack_images_create or bookstack_images_delete. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from bookstack_attachments_update or other update tools beyond the image resource focus.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing image ID), exclusions (e.g., when to use bookstack_images_create instead for new images), or contextual cues. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and description alone, which is insufficient for clear decision-making.

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