uselink_upload_zip

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavior disclosure. It transparently explains the extraction, storage, rewriting of <img src> to CDN URLs, and the return of rewritten HTML plus asset lists. This goes beyond a basic 'uploads a zip' and discloses key processing steps, though it omits potential edge cases like invalid zips or authentication requirements.

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 sentences with no fluff. The first sentence states the core action, and the second details the outcome. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description explicitly states the return value (rewritten HTML plus created/skipped assets), which compensates for that lack. The tool's complexity is adequately covered, including the extraction and URL rewriting behavior. The description is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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%, with both parameters (zip_path and document_id) already well-described in the schema. The description adds context about the zip containing HTML and assets, but this does not materially enhance the parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 specifies the verb 'Upload' and the resource 'a zip archive containing an HTML page and its referenced assets,' distinguishing it from sibling tools like uselink_upload_asset (single asset) and uselink_publish_with_assets (publishing). It also details the server-side processing, making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 for when to use this tool: when you have a zip archive that contains an HTML page and its assets. It doesn't explicitly state 'use this instead of uselink_upload_asset' or mention exclusions, but the use case is implicit enough for an agent to infer the appropriate scenario.

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