create_sticker

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses hard constraints on the uploaded asset (PNG or APNG, max 512KB, exactly 320x320), which is real behavioral value, but it says nothing about required permissions, failure behavior, or reversibility for what is clearly a write operation.

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?

A single tight sentence that leads with the action and appends the constraints. Nothing is wasted and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the asset constraints adequately but omits permission requirements and any indication of what a successful or failed call returns. It is minimally viable but has visible gaps.

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%, so all six parameters are already documented in the schema, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds format/size constraints that the schema lacks, but nothing about required-vs-optional behavior or the audit 'reason' parameter.

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 new custom sticker'), which clearly separates it from siblings like list_stickers, get_sticker_details, and delete_sticker. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. The constraint clause (PNG/APNG, 512KB, 320x320) is a validation rule rather than usage guidance, so an agent gets no routing help.

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