Huawei App Gallery

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses critical behavioral traits: auto-chunking for files >4GB and draft attachment state. Mentions implied workflow (get URL → upload). Missing explicit side effects or auth requirements but covers key mechanical behaviors.

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 dense and front-loaded. Single sentence covers: action, source, destination, internal workflow, size handling, and final state. Parenthetical workflow '(get URL → upload...)' efficiently packs procedural context without verbosity.

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?

Complete for the operation described: chunking behavior explained (crucial for large uploads), draft state clarified, workflow outlined. No output schema present, but description adequately covers the input-to-state transition.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description adds 'local disk' context for file_path, implies file_type values via 'APK/AAB', and adds critical behavioral context (auto-chunking) related to file handling that schema doesn't convey.

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?

Specific verb ('Upload') + resource ('APK/AAB') + source ('local disk') + destination ('AppGallery'). 'Attach to draft' distinguishes from sibling submit_app/submit_app_with_file tools that likely handle publication.

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?

Implies usage context via 'attach to draft' (indicates this precludes final submission). Workflow steps in parentheses ('get URL → upload') illustrate internal process. Lacks explicit 'use X instead for Y' but provides clear operational context.

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