upload_artifact

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that file type is auto-detected and that upload and track assignment are atomic. Missing details like failure behavior or auth requirements, but sufficient for basic understanding.

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 well-structured with a clear first sentence followed by a list of parameters. Every sentence adds value; no redundant or verbose content.

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 the complexity of 7 parameters and no output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: parameter explanations, defaults, atomic behavior, and file type detection. No gaps in context for an AI agent to use the tool 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%, but the description provides comprehensive explanations for each parameter, including defaults, examples (e.g., package name), and structure (e.g., release_notes dict). This adds significant value beyond the schema titles.

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 verb 'Upload', the resource 'APK or AAB', and the outcome 'create a release on the given track'. This purpose is distinct from siblings like 'upload_to_internal_sharing' which does not involve tracks.

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 the tool is used for uploading artifacts to a specific track for release, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. It could be improved by contrasting with 'upload_to_internal_sharing'.

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