upload_cover_image

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden. It discloses the two-step process (upload to workspace storage, then set cover_image_url) and the impact on the kit. However, it does not mention potential side effects like overwriting existing images or file constraints.

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 sentences, directly stating the purpose and process. It is front-loaded with the key action and uses succinct language without redundancy.

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 simple upload tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the main action and parameters. It could be enhanced by mentioning success indicators or error conditions, but overall it provides sufficient context for an agent to understand the 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?

Both parameters have schema descriptions (kit_id and file_path). The description adds context by explaining file_path is for the image file and the purpose of kit_id. Since schema coverage is 100%, baseline is 3, and the extra context justifies a 4.

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 tool uploads an image to set as the kit's hero/cover image, with a specific location (top of portal for supported templates) and the two-step process. It distinguishes from siblings like upload_kit_logo and upload_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 setting cover images but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives like upload_kit_logo for logos or upload_asset for general assets. No exclusions or conditions are mentioned.

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