upload_image

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

Annotations already disclose the operational profile (readOnly=false, openWorld=true, idempotent=false, destructive=false). The description adds the return contract (asset id + URL), which is useful, but it does not warn that non-idempotency means repeat uploads create duplicate assets, nor mention permissions or size/rate limits.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, and the core action is front-loaded before the integration details. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

With no output schema, the description steps in by naming the returned fields (asset id and URL), and the schema covers accepted formats. Minor gaps remain around failure modes and duplicate handling, but the essentials for calling correctly are present.

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 description coverage is 80%, so the schema already documents name, source, project, and folder_id. The description contributes nothing beyond that for parameters (it only mentions the URL output), so the baseline 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Upload an image to the world's asset library') and states the return value ('asset id and URL'). No sibling tool performs uploads, so the distinction from list_assets/create_resource etc. is implicit but clear from the verb.

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 gives concrete downstream usage context: the returned URL goes into a page image, a resource banner_url, or a map_image_asset_id. This tells the agent what the tool feeds into, but it does not state when *not* to use it or name an alternative upload path.

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