上传文件到 AGC

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

The description discloses that the tool returns an objectId and requires a subsequent call to associate the file, which is useful behavioral context. It also implies a side effect (uploading to an external server), consistent with readOnlyHint=false. However, it does not detail potential constraints like authorization, overwrite behavior, or rate limits; annotations don't carry much of the burden, so the description could be richer.

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 and front-loads the purpose and types of files, followed by a clear next-step instruction. No wasted words, and the essential workflow is conveyed efficiently. Slightly longer than strictly necessary but still 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?

For a tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, return value (objectId), and the necessary follow-up logic to link the file to an app. It does not explain error handling or scenario-specific requirements like chineseMainlandFlag, but those are covered by the schema. Given the available structure, the description is adequately 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?

The input schema already provides descriptions for 4 of 5 parameters (80% coverage), including filePath, fileName, releaseType, and chineseMainlandFlag. The tool description adds context about accepted file types (packages, icons, screenshots, etc.), which is helpful, but it does not clarify appId beyond the schema. This is a baseline score where schema handles most parameter semantics.

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 uploads local files (listing specific types like .app/.apk/.aab/.rpk, icons, etc.) to the AGC file server and returns an objectId. It also differentiates from siblings by explicitly naming agc_update_app_package as a follow-up step, making the upload-only scope unambiguous.

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 gives clear usage context: it is the first step for associating files with an app, and explicitly instructs the agent to call other interfaces (e.g., agc_update_app_package or agc_request) after obtaining the objectId. It does not mention when not to use this tool or alternatives for other upload scenarios, but the workflow is well-defined.

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