asset_upload_file

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses that this is the PUT/chunk step of a multi-step mutation, that finalization happens elsewhere, and the subtle secret-redaction failure mode for signatures. That is meaningful behavioral context beyond any structured field.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and protocol position before the parameter advice, and every sentence adds value. The parentheses listing asset types and the redaction rationale are dense but justified; slightly verbose but not wasteful.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description explains the workflow, the required finalization step, and parameter pitfalls. It could say more about error/partial-upload behavior, but it is complete enough to call 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?

Schema coverage is only 25% (only filePath documented), but the description compensates by explaining assetType+assetId as a preferred pairing and characterizing uploadOperations as a fragile fallback. It doesn't detail offset/length/entityTag mechanics for the raw uploadOperations route, but overall it restores most parameter meaning.

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 binary file to App Store Connect) and enumerates the concrete asset types it serves. It also positions itself within a 3-step protocol, so an agent immediately knows its role versus sibling asset tools.

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?

Explicitly recommends the assetType+assetId route and warns that the uploadOperations route is fragile due to secret redaction. It also names the required follow-up ('update' endpoint with uploaded:true), leaving little to inference.

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