card_builder_upload_svg

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 explains the required format for SVG content and the return structure. However, it omits details about potential side effects (e.g., overwriting files), permissions, or constraints like file size limits, which would be helpful 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?

The description is concise (under 100 words) and well-structured, front-loading the main purpose and then providing specific usage context and return value details. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 output schema exists, the description adequately explains the return shape. However, it lacks information on error scenarios, behavior if a file with the same name exists, and how the path parameter is used. As one of several upload tools, more contextual details would improve completeness.

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. It adds meaning for svg_content by specifying the required format. The filename is mentioned in the return value but not described as a parameter. The path parameter is entirely ignored. This leaves two of three parameters undescribed, though the critical one is covered.

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 SVG) and resource (Card Builder media library). It explains the intended use case for AI clients designing SVGs inline. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling upload tools like card_builder_upload_image_from_url or card_builder_upload_media, leaving room for ambiguity.

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 specifies that the tool is for AI clients designing SVGs inline, implying a context of custom, dynamically generated content. It notes the absence of preset styles. However, it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives among the sibling upload tools.

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