Upload White-label Logo

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

The description contradicts the annotations: annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description states the tool uploads, replaces, and deletes a logo—clearly a write and destructive operation. This is a serious inconsistency, making the behavioral transparency effectively misleading.

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 concise and well-structured: it opens with the core action, immediately provides format and size constraints, then notes side effects. The group, cost, and example are neatly appended. Every sentence serves a purpose with no redundancy.

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 explanation covers the main behavior and constraints, but it omits important details such as the return value (whether it returns success/URL/error) and error handling for invalid input or size exceedance. Given the tool's simplicity, it is reasonably complete but lacks clarity on what the agent can expect back.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates by explaining the parameter's format (base64 data URL), allowed image types (png, jpeg, svg+xml, webp), file size limit (512 KB), and includes an example. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's pattern constraint.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: to upload a logo as a base64 data URL. It specifies the action ('Upload'), the resource ('logo'), and provides details on format, size limit, and side effects (replaces prior logo, deletes old file). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like whitelabel_preview or whitelabel_domain_verify.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks information about prerequisites, use cases, or when not to use it. There is no mention of related tools or when to choose this over other white-label tools.

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