Upload Image

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for revealing side effects. It does disclose that the tool is disabled in read-only mode and that it creates a new edit and commits it, which signals mutation. However, it does not mention whether it replaces existing images, what happens to drafts, or other side effects beyond the commit. This is partial but not comprehensive.

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 short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action, format constraints, and the commit behavior, then adds the read-only restriction. Every word contributes useful information.

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?

With an output schema present and full parameter coverage, the description covers the essential operation, side effects (new edit and commit), and the read-only restriction. A minor gap is that it does not explain why a new edit is created each time or how this interacts with existing open edits, but this is not critical for a straightforward upload action.

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 the schema already documents all four parameters clearly. The description adds little beyond confirming PNG/JPEG formats, which is also in the image_path schema description. Thus, the description provides no meaningful semantic uplift over the structured 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'), a precise resource ('store-listing image'), format constraints (PNG or JPEG), and the full lifecycle ('to a new edit and commit it'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling upload tools like upload_apk, upload_bundle, and upload_expansion_file, as well as from create_edit/commit_edit.

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 makes clear this is for store-listing images and that it creates and commits a new edit, so an agent can infer when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as 'use upload_expansion_file for expansion files' or 'if you need to add multiple images to the same edit, use...' The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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