upload_assets

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully reveals the transformation semantics (raster/SVG becomes editable SVG layers or image fills) and a source-location restriction, but says nothing about whether files are copied or referenced, what happens on partial failure, or whether existing content is affected.

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, zero filler. The capability statement comes first and the constraint second, which is the right front-loading for a quick scan.

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?

No annotations and no output schema mean the description is the only source of behavioral detail, and it covers the core operation adequately. The undocumented `parentId` and the absence of any return-value or batch-failure information leave meaningful gaps for an upload tool.

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 0% across 2 parameters, so the description must compensate and only does so for `files` (raster/SVG, inside the Work workspace). The `parentId` parameter is never mentioned anywhere, leaving the agent with no idea where the imported layers will land.

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 names a specific verb (import) and resource (workspace raster/SVG files) and states the outcome: editable SVG layers or image fills. That distinguishes it from siblings like download_assets and import_scene, though it never explicitly contrasts with import_scene, which sounds close in function.

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?

It gives one real precondition – files must live in the current Work workspace – which is actionable usage context. But it offers no guidance on when to choose this over import_scene or other import paths, and no exclusions or failure conditions beyond the workspace constraint.

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