upload_images

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

Annotations only flag destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true; the description adds genuinely new behavior: size-rule validation before upload, screenshot ordering, an 8-item cap, and the fact that replace=True wipes existing images of that type while icon/featureGraphic/tvBanner always replace. It doesn't cover failure modes or what 'staging' means for live state, keeping it out of the top tier.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then constraints. Every clause carries information an agent needs and nothing is padded.

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 destructive mutation with no output schema and 0% parameter documentation, the description leaves real gaps: it never says what staging returns, how errors from the size check surface, or what language/edit_id/package_name do. It covers the headline behavior well but not enough to call safely without inspecting the schema.

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 0%, so the description must compensate and it only partially does: it explains 'replace', the ordering/cap semantics of 'paths', and implicit-replace behavior for three image_type enum values. The language, edit_id, and package_name parameters get no explanation anywhere.

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 and resource ('Stages uploads of local PNG/JPEG graphics') and adds the validation constraint, which cleanly separates it from sibling tools like list_images and delete_images. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so it falls short of the top mark.

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 word 'Stages' implies this feeds into an edit/commit flow (commit_edit sibling), but the description never states when to use this versus delete_images or that commit_edit is required afterward. Usage is implied rather than specified.

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