upload_image

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It discloses the upload action, deduplication behavior, and return fields (ok, asset_id, oss_url, dedup). This provides good transparency, though it could mention permissions or error cases.

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 sentences efficiently cover purpose, parameters, and return format. It is front-loaded and to the point, but could benefit from slightly more structured breakdown.

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 and presence of an output schema, the description covers purpose, parameters, and return values adequately. It explains the integration points (blockJson, ingest_question.images), but lacks details on error handling or prerequisites.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains local_path as local absolute path and asset_kind as asset type with example 'figure'. While it adds meaning beyond the schema, it could provide more detail on the asset_kind options or path format.

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 it uploads a local image to OSS with deduplication, returning an ossUrl usable in blockJson or ingest_question.images. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying the exact use case and output integration.

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 implies the tool should be used for uploading local images for use in blocks or ingest_question, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives. The context is implied but not fully directed.

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