upload_image

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description covers key behavioral aspects: it is a write operation, returns a hash, scoped per account, and mentions backend caching. It does not cover file size limits or supported formats but is sufficient for a simple upload.

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 and front-loaded with 'WRITE:' and the main purpose, then return format and important note. Each sentence adds value, though minor redundancy could be trimmed.

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?

The description explains the return format and provides cross-account advice. However, it lacks details on error cases, file size limits, or supported image types. Given no output schema, it covers the essentials but could be more complete.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context like 'Recommended' for url and explains how filename is used by Meta, but does not significantly expand beyond the schema descriptions.

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 explicitly states 'Upload an image to an ad account' and details the return format. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like create_ad_creative and upload_video by explaining how the returned hash is used in creative creation.

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 provides clear context on when to use this tool, especially the note about hash scoping and cross-account usage. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it.

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