Replace all annotations on an image with a new list in one call, or clear every existing annotation by passing an empty list.
Replace ALL annotations on an image with the given list. Pass an empty list to clear them.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| image_id | Yes | ||
| annotations | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does surface the single most important trait: this is a destructive full-overwrite of all existing annotations, with an empty list as the documented clearing path. It stops short of mentioning permission requirements, atomicity, or error behavior on a bad image_id.
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?
Two short sentences, zero padding, and the destructive scope is front-loaded ahead of the clearing tip. Every sentence earns its place.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers purpose plus the destructive/clearing semantics for a two-parameter mutation tool. The remaining gap is the undocumented image_id parameter and absence of any failure-mode 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?
Top-level schema coverage is 0% (image_id and annotations carry no descriptions), so the description must compensate. It clarifies that 'annotations' is a complete replacement list and that an empty list is a valid, meaningful value — useful information the schema does not convey — but it says nothing about image_id or how it relates to the sibling tools.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Replace ALL annotations on an image') with an explicit scope qualifier ('ALL') that inherently contrasts with the additive/removal semantics of the sibling tools add_annotations and remove_annotations. It does not name any sibling explicitly, so it falls just short of the top band.
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 gives one useful usage rule — 'Pass an empty list to clear them' — which is effectively an alternative to remove_annotations. However, it never states when to choose this tool over add_annotations or remove_annotations, nor any prerequisite (e.g. the image must already exist), so guidance remains implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.