product_upload_image

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

Annotations already declare the write/openWorld/non-idempotent profile, and the description adds two genuinely new facts: the return payload {file_id, url} and the sandbox constraint that the path is confined to the server's allowed directories. That confinement note is real operational context an agent needs before calling.

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, no filler, with the action and its scope front-loaded before the return and constraint details. Every clause 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?

The output schema covers return values so the description needn't, and the sandbox constraint closes the main safety gap. However, with three parameters at 0% schema coverage, the definition is not complete enough for an agent to confidently supply group_id or account_key.

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% and the description only obliquely touches 'path' via the confinement sentence. The two optional parameters, group_id and account_key, are entirely unexplained in both schema and description, leaving the agent guessing how to scope the upload.

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 one local image to the photo bank') plus the return shape. No sibling tool performs image upload, so the definition is unambiguously distinguishable from the surrounding publish/query tools.

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 never says when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g. read_local_media, product_publish flows) or what prerequisites it assumes. 'One local image' hints at single-file batching behavior but stops short of guidance.

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