Update image details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the patch-style 'omitted fields unchanged' contract, which is useful, but it is silent on what happens when a field is explicitly set to null (the schema permits null) and on any permission requirements — an ambiguity that matters for a mutation tool.

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 with zero filler; the mutable field list comes first and the partial-update rule is front-loaded immediately after. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 annotations cover the safety profile for a low-complexity 5-parameter flat tool. The only real omissions are the null-versus-omit distinction and any authorization expectations, which are minor but not negligible for a write operation.

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% and every property already carries an 'omit to keep it' description plus a UUID explanation for image_id, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description merely enumerates the same four editable fields and adds the aggregate patch rule, which is a baseline-level contribution rather than new semantics.

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 ('Update') and resource ('an image's name, category, sub-category or description'), so the agent knows exactly what changes. It is the only metadata-mutation tool among the siblings, but the description never says so explicitly, leaving differentiation to inference.

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 sentence 'Omitted fields are left unchanged' establishes partial-update semantics, which is real usage guidance for calling it correctly. However, there is no explicit when-to-use framing versus siblings such as add_annotations or replace_annotations, and no stated prerequisites (e.g., whether the image must exist or be owned by the caller).

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