upload_kit_logo

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

With no annotations, the description reveals the two-step behavior (upload to storage, set logo_url). Yet it misses details like overwrite behavior, file size limits, auth requirements, or error handling, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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?

Three sentences with no waste: first sentence states purpose, second clarifies differentiation, third explains mechanism. Front-loaded and efficient.

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?

Lacks output description since no output schema exists. No mention of return value, success/error indicators, or edge cases. Given sibling diversity, more context would help agent decide correctly.

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 covers both params with descriptions, but the description adds allowed image formats (SVG, PNG, JPG, WEBP) for file_path and explains the upload+set process, enhancing understanding beyond the schema.

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 main logo in the portal header, distinguishing it from the Logos block. It specifies the verb 'upload' and the resource 'kit logo', making the purpose unambiguous.

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 contrasts this tool with the Logos block, providing some differentiation. However, it does not explicitly compare to similar upload tools like upload_cover_image or specify prerequisites or when not to use it.

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