Upload and add an image

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-idempotent, non-destructive, open-world write, so the description's job is supplementary. It adds real context beyond them: the insert point follows the current selection and defaults to the last section so content appends at the end. It doesn't cover failure behavior for a bad path or where the uploaded asset lives afterwards.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, followed by placement behavior and the follow-up tool. Every sentence carries information an agent needs and there is no filler.

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 one-parameter write tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, this is nearly complete: action, accepted formats, and insertion point are all covered. The only gap is what happens on upload failure or where the image is stored, which is minor here.

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% and the single file_path parameter is already documented as an absolute path. The description nevertheless adds meaning the schema lacks by naming accepted formats (png/jpg/gif/webp), which prevents an agent from passing an unsupported file type.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Upload a local image file ... add it to the open page'), which cleanly separates it from gsites_upload_to_drive and gsites_add_drive_item. The agent knows exactly what happens without opening the schema.

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?

Explains the placement semantics and points to gsites_move_section for reordering afterwards, giving clear context for use. It does not explicitly say when to prefer a sibling such as adding an image already in Drive, so the alternatives are only implied.

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