Загрузить изображение

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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only operation; the description adds meaningful behavior: the server downloads from the URL and encodes it, accepts JPG/PNG/GIF up to 10 MB, and requires horizontal dimensions of at least 1080×607. This helps the agent predict validation and side effects beyond the annotation flags.

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 dense sentences with no filler: purpose and return value first, input options second, format and dimensional constraints last. Every sentence 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?

For a simple upload tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool does, how to pass the image, what it returns, accepted formats, size limit, and the target ad use case. Nothing essential is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already describes url, name, and imageData, including the exclusivity between url and imageData and the base64 prefix behavior. The description mostly restates these facts, so it adds only marginal parameter-level value.

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 names a specific action ('Загружает изображение'), a specific resource ('библиотеку изображений (adimages/add)'), and the key return value (AdImageHash). It clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like get_ad_images or delete_callouts.

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?

It states the primary use case — producing an AdImageHash for a text-graphic ad — and explains the two input alternatives (public URL or base64 imageData). It does not explicitly compare against sibling tools, but no sibling offers equivalent upload functionality, 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.