create_public_photo

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the core action (upload and attach) and the local file requirement, but does not disclose side effects such as whether the record can have multiple public photos, whether the operation replaces existing photos, permission requirements, or what the return value is. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and the key input requirement. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or repetition.

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 simplicity of the tool (3 fully described parameters, no nested objects, no output schema), the description covers the essential 'what' and 'how', but lacks information about the outcome of the operation (e.g., return value, confirmation) and any edge cases like handling duplicate attachments. It is adequate but not thorough.

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 100% description coverage for all three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal semantic value: it reiterates the need for a local file path and the attach behavior, but does not provide additional syntax, formatting, or relationship details beyond what the schema already specifies.

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 action ('Upload'), the resource ('a new public photo'), and the key additional behavior ('attach it to a record'). This specific verb+resource+scope distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'create_photo' (which may not attach) or 'update_public_photo' (which updates an existing photo).

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 clear context for when to use this tool: when you want to upload a new public photo and associate it with a specific record. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficiently clear for an agent to decide. A more explicit comparison to 'create_photo' would elevate to a 5.

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