upload_image

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

The description reveals key behavioral traits: the tool returns a public fileUrl and fetches source_url server-side. It also discloses the local-only constraint for file_path. Since annotations only provide default safety hints (readOnlyHint=false, etc.), the description carries the burden and adds meaningful behavior information without contradicting annotations.

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 with no fluff. The first sentence establishes purpose and outcome, the second gives parameter guidance. Every word earns its place, and the structure is scannable and effective.

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 tool with 5 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, how to provide input (two modes with constraints), and what the return value is (public fileUrl). Minor gaps like file size limits or handling of invalid input are not critical for basic invocation, and the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to use the tool 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?

The schema already covers most parameters with descriptions (80% coverage), but the description adds the crucial either/or relationship between file_path and source_url, which is not encoded in the schema. This helps the agent avoid providing both parameters. The description also reinforces the local-only constraint for file_path, adding semantic value 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's action ('Upload an image (or digital file)'), target ('to the store's storage'), and result ('get back a public fileUrl'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on image/file uploads for products/categories, which is a unique utility among the listed CRUD and analytics tools.

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 explicit usage guidance by specifying the two mutually exclusive input modes ('Provide EITHER file_path ... OR source_url') and clarifies that file_path is 'local server only'. While it doesn't mention alternatives (there are no other upload tools), it gives sufficient context for when to use this tool and how to invoke it correctly.

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