create_document_image

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

The annotations already convey that this is a mutating, non-idempotent operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond those annotations: the base64 format requirement, the fact that data: URIs will be rejected, and the need to publish the document afterward. It does not discuss failure modes, rate limits, or what exactly is returned, but with annotations covering the basic safety profile this is reasonably transparent.

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 sentences with no filler: the action and purpose, the payload encoding rule, and the critical constraints plus follow-up step. The most important constraint is front-loaded, and every sentence 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 three-parameter upload tool with no output schema, the description covers the core workflow, necessary format, and the required follow-up publish action. It is slightly incomplete in that it does not mention how a caller should reference the returned image identifier when building the document section, and it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling create_attachment tool.

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 schema already documents all three parameters, including the requirement to strip any data: prefix from content. The description reinforces that instruction and explains why, but it does not add new parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already provides. This meets the high-coverage baseline at 3.

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 opens with a specific action ('Upload an image into an IT Glue document') and the intent ('so it can be shown inline in the document body'), making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It also distinguishes it fromsiblings like create_attachment by emphasizing inline use in the document body rather than a generic file attachment.

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 gives clear contextual guidance: it explains that the HTML sanitiser rejects inline SVG and data: URIs, so uploading first is explicitly called 'the only way to get a picture into a document body.' It also directs the agent to call publish_document after editing sections. It does not explicitly name create_attachment as the alternative for non-inline attachments, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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