upload_event_poster

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes the operation: downloads from URL and uploads to S3. It hints at returning an s3Url. However, it lacks details on security, error handling, size limits, or prerequisites, making it adequate but not comprehensive.

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 long, front-loading the main purpose and following with a usage directive. Every sentence provides value with no redundancy or fluff.

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 simple tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the action and links to the related edit_event tool. It is nearly complete but could mention that eventId must correspond to an existing event, or explicitly state the return format.

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% with descriptions already explaining both parameters. The tool description adds minimal new information beyond what the schema provides. It restates that eventId organizes files in S3, but does not add constraints or format details.

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 tool uploads an event poster image to an S3 bucket, specifying the action (upload), resource (event poster image), and destination (BNDY S3 bucket). It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on poster upload and linking to edit_event.

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 description provides clear context: 'Use the returned s3Url with edit_event to set as event poster.' This implies the usage flow. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or list alternatives, but given its specificity, the guidance is good.

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