browser_upload_stage

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

With no annotations, the description carries full transparency burden. It discloses idempotency, destination, return value, and maxBytes limit. Missing details on permission requirements or error handling, but adequate for typical staging operations.

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 (4 sentences) with no redundancy. Key information is front-loaded: what it does, where, and what it returns.

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 5 parameters, 1 required, nested objects, and no output schema, the description covers the essential: source types, return value, idempotency, and size limit. It could mention the 'keep' parameter's effect, but schema descriptions suffice for that.

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 80%, and the description adds context beyond schema: grouping of source types, purpose of stashId, and idempotency. It also clarifies that stashId is reused across uploads, which is not explicit in 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 function: staging files into a specific upload library. It specifies file types (image/video/document), destination path, and return value (stashId). It distinguishes itself from sibling tool browser_upload_file by noting that stashId can be passed to it.

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 lists the four accepted source types (path, url, dataUrl, base64) and explains idempotency and stashId reuse. It indirectly guides when to use this tool (before browser_upload_file) but lacks explicit 'when not to use' or alternative scenarios.

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