dreamlayer_upload_image

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the core behavior: it uploads a local image and returns an input_asset_id for later use. However, it does not mention potential constraints (e.g., file size limits, asynchronous behavior, or what happens on invalid paths), which are not trivial for a file upload operation. The description covers the essential contract but lacks depth.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and immediately followed by the critical return-value note. There is zero redundancy or filler; every word earns its place.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is fully complete. It explains what the tool does, what input it expects (implicitly through the path), and what result the agent will get and how to use it. There are no missing details an agent would need to call the tool correctly in the intended workflow.

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%, and the parameter 'path' is already well-described in the schema ('Absolute path to a PNG, JPEG, WEBP, or camera RAW'). The description adds negligible extra meaning beyond confirming the file is local and its role as a reference. Per the baseline for high schema coverage, a score of 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 states a clear verb ('Upload'), specific resource ('one local image'), and its purpose ('for use as a reference'). It also mentions the return value and how it is consumed by a specific sibling (dreamlayer_generate), which makes its role in the workflow unambiguous. No sibling tool has a similar purpose, so differentiation is inherent.

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 explicitly ties usage to subsequent generation by stating the returned ID is 'to pass to dreamlayer_generate'. This implies when to use the tool (before generation) and the intended flow. It does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions, but no alternative upload tool exists among the siblings, so the guidance is sufficient.

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