Upload an image (png, jpeg, gif, webp; max 1MB) for embedding in documents. Returns a URL and a ready-to-paste markdown snippet. Images are served at an unguessable URL — anyone with the exact link can view.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | Base64-encoded image bytes (standard alphabet, no data: URI prefix) | |
| filename | Yes | Original filename, e.g. screenshot.png |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavior disclosure. It discloses file format restrictions, size limit, return value (URL and markdown snippet), and a security caveat (unguessable URL, anyone with link can view). This is solid but omits error handling or permission requirements.
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, front-loaded with the primary purpose and then providing key constraints and return info. No fluff or redundant statements; every sentence contributes value.
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 simple tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers input formats/size, return value, and security implications. While it lacks edge-case details (e.g., what happens if size exceeded), it provides sufficient context for an agent to use it 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?
The input schema provides 100% coverage for both parameters (`data` and `filename`) with detailed descriptions. The tool description does not add additional parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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's function: 'Upload an image (png, jpeg, gif, webp; max 1MB) for embedding in documents.' It uses a specific verb (Upload), identifies the resource (image), and implies its role in creating/updating documents, distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_document or update_document.
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 phrase 'for embedding in documents' provides a clear intended use case. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling tools are document-management focused, making it obvious this tool is for image uploads. This is sufficient guidance for when to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a distinct role: document CRUD (create, get, update, archive), listing/searching, annotation create/list, and two auth helper tools. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case (e.g., create_document, list_annotations, request_device_auth). The naming is uniform and predictable across both document and auth tools.
With 10 tools, the server is well-scoped for document management plus required auth flow. It covers the essential operations without being bloated or too thin.
Core document operations are covered (create, read, update, archive, list, search), but there is no hard delete or unarchive, and annotations only support create/list (no update/delete). Additionally, there is no explicit tool for sharing documents despite the mention of shared docs.
