Update image template

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

Beyond annotations it discloses that provider scopes, locks and credits apply (auth + billing cost), that confirmation is mandatory before execution, and that only one submission is permitted — the latter corroborating idempotentHint=false and warning against retries. It stops short of saying what the destructive update overwrites or how partial updates behave.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with the endpoint leading. The telegraphic style ('Current Bannerbear V5 operation') is efficient though slightly clipped, and no sentence is wasted.

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?

For a complex PATCH tool with nested layer objects, no output schema and only 80% param coverage, the description does not explain what a payload update replaces or how the confirm gate works. The safety-critical notes are present, but coverage of the update semantics is thin.

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 80%, so account, confirm, payload and payload_file are documented in the schema itself; the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, not even clarifying the {uid} path variable or the payload/payload_file exclusivity it alludes to.

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 states a specific verb and resource via 'PATCH /v5/image_templates/{uid}', which clearly signals an update operation distinct from create/get/delete siblings. However it never names the sibling tools or spells out what fields of the template can be modified, leaving the agent to infer scope from the schema.

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?

It notes 'Mandatory confirmation before provider execution; one submission only,' which is a procedural constraint, but gives no guidance on when to choose update over create_image_template, delete_image_template, or get_image_template. No conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives are stated.

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