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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, so the description needn't restate mutation. It adds useful behavioral context: defaults to background removal, requires one full front view with unique full views, and accepts repeatable detail views. This goes beyond the structured annotations.

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 four sentences and front-loaded with the primary action. It efficiently covers source constraints, processing default, asset rules, and alternatives without 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?

For a complex 12-parameter upload tool with no output schema, the description covers key operational aspects: source type, batch capability, processing default, and asset validation rules. It lacks explicit mention of return values or side effects, but the schema and annotations supplement this. Could be more complete about what the agent receives after upload.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description repeats asset constraints and processing_mode default that are already in the schema, adding little new meaning. It does summarize the preferred asset structure, but does not materially enhance parameter understanding.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Batch upload garments from public HTTP(S) image URLs.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly naming alternatives (upload_garment_from_chat_file, prepare_local_garment_upload) and excluding base64/chat file/local paths.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'For ChatGPT attachments, use upload_garment_from_chat_file instead. For local filesystem files, use prepare_local_garment_upload instead.' It also clarifies processing_mode defaults and asset constraints, giving the agent actionable selection criteria.

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