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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well. It discloses that the tool verifies the uploaded image exists, enforces a 2 MB limit, attaches the logo, returns a public logo_url, and errors if the upload has not happened yet.

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 tightly written, front-loads the prerequisite flow, and packs the key behavioral and routing details into a few sentences without redundancy. Every sentence earns its place.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the full call sequence, return value, failure mode, retry guidance, size limit, and the relevant alternative for watermark configuration. Nothing needed for correct invocation 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful flow-level semantics: logo_key must be the value returned by create_agent_logo_upload, and the upload URL must be used before calling this tool. This goes beyond the schema's field-level descriptions.

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 a specific verb and resource: finishing an agent's logo attachment after the upload step. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling create_agent_logo_upload by framing this as the follow-up step.

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 explicitly says when to use the tool: after calling create_agent_logo_upload and PUT-ing the image bytes to the upload URL. It also provides an error-recovery path (upload then retry) and routes watermark placement control to update_agent via composition_parameters, covering the main alternative.

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