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

With no annotations, the description fully carries behavioral disclosure. It states the tool is FREE, requires only an account, is ASYNCHRONOUS, returns a `tool_job` hashid and `status: 'queued'`, requires polling get_tool_job_status, and notes rate limits and per-file size caps. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs beyond the schema.

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 long but earned: it front-loads the purpose, then uses compact paragraphs and a bulleted operation list. Every sentence conveys actionable detail, and the async/rate-limit notes are grouped logically at the end.

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 multi-operation async tool with no output schema, the description covers the full lifecycle: how to supply input, what is returned, how to poll for completion, and what constraints apply. Nothing essential to calling the tool correctly is missing.

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?

Although the schema covers all parameters, the description adds crucial relationships: per-operation parameter groups, defaults for quality and format, and the OR exclusivity between `aspect` and x/y/width/height in crop. This transforms a flat 9-parameter schema into a usable decision tree.

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 and resource: 'Edit an already-uploaded image `file`' and enumerates the exact operations (compress, resize, crop). This clearly differentiates it from upload and video siblings, so an agent knows exactly what the tool is for.

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 gives a concrete usage flow: call create_upload, PUT bytes, pass the returned id, and explicitly says 'Do NOT call complete_upload' because that starts a different pipeline. It does not explicitly compare to image-adjacent siblings like convert_media or remove_background, but the operation list and upload prerequisite make the intended context clear.

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