upload_asset

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that local paths are uploaded to a temporary public host, that the asset persists on PiAPI for days, and that providing influencer_page causes a side effect of recording the asset id in an Obsidian file. This is more than minimal but omits potential details like auth requirements or failure behavior.

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 and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose and return value, the second and third sentences add necessary behavioral nuance and side effects. Every sentence earns its place without fluff.

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?

The description covers the main workflow and the influencer_page side effect, but with 5 parameters and 0% schema coverage, the agent lacks enough context about optional parameters and when to use them. The output schema exists, so return values are less critical, but missing parameter semantics leaves the tool only partially complete.

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 0%, and the description only explains influencer_page. It does not clarify the meaning of name, asset_type, wait_active, or the exact format of image (beyond 'local path or public URL'). Since the schema has no descriptions, this lack of parameter information is a significant gap for correct invocation.

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 uses a specific verb ('Register'), names the resource ('a private asset'), and clarifies the input forms ('local path or public URL') and the return value ('asset://id'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_assets, get_asset, and delete_asset.

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 usage for asset registration, and the mention of influencer_page side effect suggests a particular workflow, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like host_file or get_asset. There are no when-not-to-use conditions or named alternatives.

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