asc_upload_screenshot

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

The description discloses a non-obvious failure mode: a wrong checksum or offset silently leaves the asset stuck, appearing as if nothing happened. This goes well beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true) by explaining the side-effectful behavior and exact sequencing.

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 sentences with a clear structure: the first defines the core workflow, the second explains why it exists and what can go wrong. Every clause contributes meaningful operational detail without repetition or filler.

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 fully conveys the multi-step process, the dependence on Apple-supplied headers, and the critical silent-failure risk, giving an agent the operational context needed to invoke it correctly. It does not cover the return value or prerequisites in detail, but the schema and annotations already handle parameter and safety context, and no output schema exists to constrain expectations.

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 five parameters already have meaningful schema-level descriptions. The tool description mentions checksum and offset concepts but does not map them to specific input parameters, adding little parameter-level value beyond the schema.

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 specific verb ('Upload') and resource ('screenshot image') and adds the concrete reserve → upload → commit workflow, making the tool's unique function clear. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling asc_upload_iap_screenshot, so it lacks direct sibling differentiation.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: it exists because the raw API cannot perform the full upload sequence in one call. It does not mention alternative sibling tools or explicit when-not conditions, but the underlying rationale effectively guides usage.

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