product_set_images

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

The description details the 3-step upload protocol, failure handling (atomic update on failure), and the force parameter, providing rich behavioral context beyond the destructiveHint annotation. No contradiction exists.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the main purpose. While comprehensive, it is slightly verbose (4 sentences) but every sentence adds essential info, earning a high score.

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 no output schema, the description fully explains the return behavior (uploaded assets on partial failure, no update on any failure). It covers all necessary details for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 100%, but the description adds critical semantics: files must be absolute paths, first file becomes main image, and force is a defensive opt-in required to replace images. This adds significant value beyond schema.

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 begins with a clear verb and resource: 'Replace a product's images.' It immediately conveys the tool's primary function and distinguishes it from sibling tools like product_update or asset_replace by specifying image replacement.

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 explains the main use case and conditions (e.g., force=true required for replacement). However, it does not explicitly compare with alternative sibling tools or state when not to use it, limiting the guidance for tool selection.

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