upload_photos_from_paths

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses auto-chunking (max 50 files), file size limits, photo resizing behavior, supported formats, and response stats. It does not mention error handling or prerequisites, but the coverage is strong.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with essential info. Some sentences (e.g., the voice instruction) could be moved to a system prompt, but overall each sentence contributes value. Slightly longer than minimal 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 complex upload tool, it covers formats, limits, recursion, resizing, auto-chunking, and response stats. Missing error behavior and explicit permission requirements, but overall comprehensive.

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 100%, but the description adds significant value: explains that paths can be files, directories, or globs, mentions recursion (though `recursive` param is in schema), and adds context about file limits and supported formats beyond the schema descriptions.

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 photos or videos from local file paths') and the target resource ('to a FindMe event'). It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly mentioning it is the 'primary upload tool' and contrasting with upload_photos_from_urls and upload_photos_from_drive_folder.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool: 'prefer it when the photographer says things like...'. It does not specify when not to use it, but the context of sibling tools implies alternatives for non-local uploads.

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