upload_story_image

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions verification and upload but does not explain what verification entails, potential side effects (e.g., overwriting), error handling, or authentication requirements. The description is too sparse to inform the agent of safety or side effects.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently states the primary action and scope. No redundant or filler content.

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 tool's complexity—four parameters including a nested object, no output schema, and no annotations—this description is grossly inadequate. It omits critical information about parameters, verification logic, return values, and errors, making it nearly useless for correct invocation.

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%, so the description must compensate, but it does not explain any of the four parameters (story_id, slot_id, image_path, viewport). It only lists accepted file types, which is unrelated to the parameters. The nested viewport object is completely undocumented, leaving the agent without guidance on its meaning or usage.

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) and the target (Asset Hub) with specific file formats (PNG, JPG, JPEG, WebP) and a verification step. It distinguishes from sibling 'update_story_image' by implying an initial upload, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like 'save_story_content' or 'update_story_image'.

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 phrase 'after verifying the Story image slot' implies a specific use case for uploading images to slots, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor when not to use it. There is no mention of prerequisites or exclusion criteria.

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