upload_image

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the action (upload), the input types, and the return value (hash). However, it does not mention side effects, permissions, file size/format constraints, or whether the upload is synchronous. Basic behavioral info is present, but important operational details are missing.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action, and no redundant information. It efficiently states the purpose and the return value without any fluff.

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 simplicity (3 optional params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the core purpose, input modes, and output hash. It lacks details on supported formats or limits, but those are not essential for basic selection and invocation. The mention of the hash for ad creatives adds useful context for related use.

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 description coverage is 100% for all three parameters, each having a clear description in the schema. The description reinforces the url/file_path alternatives and the name default, but adds no new meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb 'Upload' with a clear resource 'ad image' and distinguishes itself from siblings by stating the two source methods (public URL or local file path). It also specifies the output (image hash for ad creatives), making it unambiguous and distinct from upload_video.

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 clearly implies when to use it: when you need to upload an image for ad creatives. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the word 'image' differentiates it from video uploads, and the output mention ties to creative creation. No when-not guidance is given, so not a 5.

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