asset_upload

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

Adds real value beyond the annotations: bounded-memory chunked uploads signals large-file safety, and the returned library/assets path explains the post-call workflow. However, the annotations declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, and the description never explains what gets destroyed (overwrite on name collision?) or what makes a repeat call non-idempotent — the most important behavioral question for this tool is left unanswered.

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?

Four short sentences, purpose front-loaded, no filler. The chunked-upload detail and the path-format rule each earn their place; only slight tightening would improve it.

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 correctly fills the void by explaining the return value and how to reference it later. Missing for a destructive, non-idempotent upload: size/type limits, overwrite semantics, and any auth or table-scoping caveats.

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?

At 33% schema coverage only table_id is documented in the schema, so the description carries extra burden. It compensates for file_path with "Path must be absolute", but says nothing about the optional `name` parameter (format, default derivation, or whether it drives overwrite), leaving a real gap.

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?

States a specific verb ("Upload") and resource ("local image/model/model ZIP/font/audio/PDF to the table gallery") with enumerated file types, which is far more specific than the bare name. It does not name its sibling counterparts (e.g., assets_list, archives_import), so the agent must infer the boundary itself.

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?

Usage is implied clearly enough for a single obvious job — push a local file into the gallery — but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not, and no routing to alternatives such as archives_import or library_save for other kinds of asset movement.

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