upload_to_internal_sharing

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Mentions file type auto-detection from extension, which is helpful, but does not disclose potential errors, access requirements, or side effects beyond the upload.

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?

Extremely concise: a one-sentence summary, a clarifying sentence, and parameter descriptions. No wasted words, essential information front-loaded.

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 tool's simplicity and lack of output schema, the description sufficiently covers the purpose, usage, and parameters. It explains the return (shareable link) and file detection. Minor omission: no mention of error handling or permissions.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the description provides clear, example-rich explanations for both parameters (package_name and file_path), adding meaning beyond the raw 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?

Clearly states uploads APK/AAB to Internal App Sharing and returns a shareable link. Distinguishes from track assignments, and specifies the resource and verb.

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?

Explicitly says 'Ideal for quick one-off testing' and 'Shares a build via URL without assigning it to a track', which implies when to use and differentiates from sibling tools like upload_artifact. However, lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative suggestions.

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