upload_artifact

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: file type auto-detection, atomic upload and track assignment, and effects of parameters like submit_for_review and rollout_percentage. This goes 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 structured with a clear heading and bullet-pointed args. While slightly verbose, every sentence provides value. It could be slightly trimmed but remains efficient.

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?

Given 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers all parameters and crucial behaviors (atomicity, file detection). It is complete enough for an AI agent to use 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates. It explains each parameter's purpose, defaults, and constraints (e.g., release_notes format, rollout_percentage default 10%). This adds significant meaning beyond the input 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 states 'Upload an APK or AAB and create a release on the given track', clearly specifying the action (upload and create), resource (APK/AAB), and context (track). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'update_release' or 'promote_release'.

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 provides detailed parameter defaults and behaviors but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_release' or 'upload_to_internal_sharing'. It lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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