evite_upload_photo

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false), the description discloses key behaviors: the confirm-gated dry-run preview, the requirement for a valid guest_id, and the fact that it truly performs the upload. This goes well beyond the minimal annotation and adds significant operational context.

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, front-loaded with the primary purpose, then adds essential usage constraints. Every word earns its place; no fluff 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (5 params, no output schema), the description covers the essential operational aspects: what it does, the prerequisite, and the confirm-gating behavior. The schema handles parameter details, so the description is complete enough 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?

The schema already provides 100% description coverage for all parameters, including details on path, confirm, event_id, guest_id, and mimetype. The description adds little beyond repeating the confirm behavior and guest_id source, so the baseline 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 states the action ('Upload a local image to an Evite event's shared photo gallery') and emphasizes the real effect ('This really adds the photo to the event album'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings by specifying the unique resource (photo gallery) and action (upload).

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 provides a clear prerequisite ('Needs your guest_id on the event') and explains the confirm-gating mechanism ('without confirm:true this returns a dry-run preview and uploads nothing'). While it doesn't name explicit alternatives, none exist among siblings; the usage context is sufficiently clear.

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