creatives_upload_image

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It states the upload action and return hash, but does not disclose prerequisites, side effects, permission requirements, or the purpose of the 'confirm' parameter. The behavioral surface is only partially revealed.

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 concise and front-loaded: two sentences stating purpose and one parameter detail. No filler or redundancy, making it easy to parse.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and three parameters, the description is underspecified. It covers only one parameter and provides no usage context, behavioral caveats, or clarification of the output hash's role. This is minimal for a tool in a broader creative workflow.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only documents image_path (absolute path, allowed formats), but omits account_id and confirm entirely. This leaves two parameters unexplained, failing to provide adequate semantics beyond the raw schema.

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 to an ad account's image library.' It uses a specific verb (upload) and resource (image library), and mentions the return value (image hash). This distinguishes it from siblings like creatives_upload_video (uploads videos) and creatives_list_images (lists images).

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 implies usage for uploading images but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. It lacks guidance about when not to use it (e.g., for videos or link ads).

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