uselink_upload_asset

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return value (asset with CDN URL) and the attaching behavior, which is useful. However, it does not mention side effects like overwriting, permissions, error conditions, or document state requirements, leaving gaps in transparency for a write operation.

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 three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence earns its place: upload action, return value, and how to use the result. No filler or 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?

For a simple tool with 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description adequately covers the purpose, the input expectations, and the return value usage. It does not explicitly compare with upload_zip, which could help in selecting the right tool, but overall it is complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema—'local filesystem' reinforces file_path, but the schema already specifies 'path to file on disk' and 'Document UUID'. No additional syntax or format details are provided, so it stays at baseline.

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 action ('Upload'), the resource ('a single image or file'), and the target ('attach it to a uselink document'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like uselink_upload_zip by specifying 'single' and from list tools by the attachment and return value.

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: use this when you need to attach a single file to a document and then use the returned URL in HTML/Markdown. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when to use upload_zip instead, but the scope is clear enough for an agent to infer the primary use case.

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