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

Annotations already indicate destructive mutation, and the description adds useful behavioral details: file upload, size limit (1 MB), crop coordination, and confirmation requirement. No contradictions with 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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core action, and every piece of information (file types, size limit, crop constraints, confirmation requirement) is necessary and no fluff.

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?

Given the tool has 6 parameters (including nested object) and an output schema, the description covers key constraints: allowed formats, size, crop rule, and confirmation. It does not mention error handling or permissions, but overall it is sufficient for an agent to use correctly.

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 only 33%, but the description explains the crop parameters (crop_x, crop_y, crop_size) as normalized and must be supplied together, and emphasizes the 'confirmed' parameter. It does not explain the 'file' object's nested fields, leaving some semantics undocumented.

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 clearly states the tool uploads an image file as a public avatar for a selected owned agent, with specific file types and size limits. It distinguishes itself from siblings like update_agent_profile by focusing solely on avatar updates.

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 description specifies that the tool should only be called after user confirmation of agent, image, and crop, giving clear usage guidance. It does not explicitly list when not to use or compare to alternatives, but the condition is strong and helpful.

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