upload_to_internal_sharing

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It reveals that file type is auto-detected from extension and that the output is a shareable link. However, it lacks details on potential side effects (e.g., overwriting), authentication requirements, size limits, or error handling.

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 with three sentences in the main section plus a brief Args list. It is front-loaded with the key purpose and contains no redundant or unnecessary text.

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 tool with 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description explains the purpose, parameters, and basic behavior adequately. It could improve by mentioning error scenarios or prerequisites, but overall it is sufficiently complete for a low-complexity tool.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the description adds an Args section with examples for both parameters: package_name (e.g., com.example.myapp) and file_path (absolute local path). This adds meaning beyond the schema's titles, clarifying expected format and usage.

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 'Upload APK or AAB to Internal App Sharing and get a shareable link.' It uses a specific verb (upload) and resource (APK/AAB to Internal App Sharing). It distinguishes from siblings by noting 'without assigning it to a track,' differentiating it from upload_artifact which likely assigns to a track.

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 indicates the tool is 'Ideal for quick one-off testing' and clarifies that it shares a build via URL without track assignment. This gives context on when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools like upload_artifact for track-bound releases.

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