Upload White-label Logo

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

The description declares a write operation that 'Replaces any prior logo and deletes the old file from storage', which directly contradicts the annotations' readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. Although the 512 KB cap and replace behavior are genuinely useful context, the contradiction with structured safety signals is disqualifying.

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 behavioral sentence is front-loaded and dense, and the bracketed metadata lines are short and scannable. Slight deduction because the metadata block partly duplicates the schema's required-parameter list.

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 single-parameter upload tool with an output schema, the description covers format, size limit, and replacement side effects. It omits authentication requirements and whether the prior logo can be recovered, but the core call contract is complete.

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 0%, but with only one parameter the description compensates well: it spells out the data-URL format, enumerates the allowed MIME types, and adds the 512 KB maximum that appears nowhere in the schema (which only has a regex pattern).

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 a logo') plus the exact transport format, and it is clearly distinguishable from its whitelabel siblings (config, domain_verify, preview). An agent knows exactly what this does without opening the schema.

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 Group/Endpoint/Cost metadata implies where the tool fits, and the 512 KB limit and replace semantics hint at prerequisites. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of required auth or prior configuration steps, and no named alternative.

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