upload-my-profile-photo

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

The description adds rich behavioral details beyond annotations: file type (JPEG), size limit (4 MB), encoding (base64), automatic variant generation (48x48, etc.), and permissible HTTP methods (PATCH/PUT). Annotations only provide readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, so the description carries the full burden and delivers.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and follows with a tip section. While it contains some repetition (e.g., 'photo' appears many times), it remains informative without being excessively long.

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 covers input constraints (size, format, encoding), permissions, and auto-scaling behavior. However, it does not describe the return value or error scenarios. Given the tool's simplicity and no output schema, it is mostly 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?

Input schema is 100% covered with descriptions. The tool description reinforces the 'body' parameter's encoding but does not add new meaning for 'includeHeaders' or 'excludeResponse'. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the verb (upload/update) and resource (profile photo for contact/group/team/user). It is specific, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'upload-file-content', which may cause ambiguity in tool selection.

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 context on permissions (ProfilePhoto.ReadWrite.All) and hints at alternative tools (download-bytes for retrieval). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool compared to others like 'upload-file-content'.

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