Update an image's name, category, sub-category, or description by image ID. Omitted fields remain unchanged.
Update an image's name, category, sub-category or description. Omitted fields are left unchanged.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| category | No | ||
| image_id | Yes | ||
| description | No | ||
| sub_category | No |
| 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 provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one meaningful behavioral trait — omitted fields are preserved — which tells the agent this is a partial rather than whole-object update. But for a mutation tool it says nothing about permissions, validation of category/sub_category values, or reversibility.
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 that are front-loaded with the action and immediately follow with the key partial-update rule. No filler or redundancy.
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. The description covers the mutable fields and the update semantics; the main remaining gap is the unmentioned required image_id and any constraints on the free-form category fields.
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 names four of the five parameters (name, category, sub-category, description) and implies each is optional via the 'omitted fields' clause, but it never mentions image_id, the sole required parameter, and adds no format or constraint detail beyond the field names.
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 clear verb (Update) and resource (an image's metadata) and enumerates exactly which fields can change. No sibling tool does the same thing (add_annotations/replace_annotations target annotations, not image metadata), so differentiation is implicit rather than stated.
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' communicates partial-update semantics, which is useful invocation context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., valid image_id), and no routing against the annotation-related siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.