upload_image

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

No annotations provided; description only states upload and return image_key. Does not disclose behavioral traits such as file size limits, supported formats, auth requirements, or potential side effects, leaving significant gaps for an upload operation.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with purpose, no extraneous information. 'Official API' prefix is minor but acceptable. Could be slightly more structured but 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 simple 2-param tool, description conveys core purpose and output key. However, lacks details on limitations, errors, or prerequisites. No output schema, but return type is stated. Adequate but not fully self-contained.

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 100% with descriptions for both parameters. Description adds no extra meaning beyond schema; it mentions image_path implicitly but does not elaborate on image_type capabilities. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema covers parameters.

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?

Description clearly states verb (upload), resource (image file), and destination (Feishu). It differentiates by specifying the return value (image_key) and connecting to sibling tool send_image_as_user, distinguishing it from generic file upload 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?

Implicitly suggests usage context by mentioning image_key use with send_image_as_user, but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance compared to alternatives like upload_file or upload_drive_file.

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