Update side image

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

Discloses server-side fetch and re-encoding, supported formats and size cap, rejection criteria (http, private hosts, non-image) with 422 and machine-readable reason, and a 20 fetches/hour rate limit with 429 semantics. These go well beyond the annotations, which only indicate mutation, idempotency, and open-world behavior.

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 dense but every sentence adds value: purpose, constraints, rate limit, uuid guidance, alternative, and return format. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the primary action.

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 mutation tool with external fetch, permissions, constraints, and error codes, the description covers all necessary aspects: permissions (owner/admin), validation, rate limit behavior, input sourcing, alternative, and return shape. No output schema exists, so the return description is essential and provided.

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 the schema already explains each parameter including the uuid source and imageUrl constraints. The description reinforces the uuid guidance and creation alternative, but adds no fundamentally new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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?

Clearly states the tool sets or changes a case side's vote-card image from a public HTTPS URL, specifying the action, resource, and context. It also distinguishes itself from create_case by noting to pass sides[].image there instead, which separates it from a key sibling.

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?

Explicitly routes the creation-time use case to tribeunal_create_case, and instructs to use uuids from tribeunal_get_case rather than numeric ids. It also provides operational guidance on rate limits and error handling (429 means wait), making when-to-use and when-not-to-use clear.

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