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

Adds real operational constraints beyond the annotations: a 5 MiB download cap, validated PNG/JPEG/WebP/GIF bytes, and a 40-million-pixel ceiling, plus the required post-import polling step and retry semantics. It does not explain what the destructiveHint=true annotation implies about the account library, which is the one behavioral gap left.

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?

Five short sentences, each carrying distinct information (purpose, input form, scope caveat, limits, follow-up, retry). The purpose is front-loaded and nothing is redundant with the schema or annotations.

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 import with nested file object and no output schema, it covers input form, validation limits, the follow-up polling call, and retry behavior. It stops short of saying what the call returns immediately (e.g., an operation/asset handle), which would fully close the loop for an agent.

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?

With only 50% schema coverage, the description compensates by clarifying that `file` is an actual file descriptor rather than a sandbox path, and by tying mime_type/size constraints to the accepted formats and limits. The idempotency_key semantics are already spelled out in the schema, so no credit is lost there.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Import a user-uploaded or client-generated image into the connected account library') and explicitly disambiguates the scope by noting 'Revup does not generate content', separating it from render/preview siblings. An agent can identify this as the ingestion entry point without opening the schema.

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?

Gives concrete operating instructions: 'Supply the actual file descriptor, never a sandbox path', 'Poll get_asset_status before attaching', and 'Reuse the identical payload and idempotency key for retries'. It names a sibling for the follow-up step, though it never states when NOT to use this tool or what alternative exists for non-image assets.

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