direct_upload_adimage

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly labels the operation as WRITE, discloses the allow_write=true requirement, and notes the input must be from server FS or raw base64. It also mentions the return value. It does not explain the dry-run behavior when allow_write is false, but the schema parameter description covers that.

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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the operation type (WRITE: adimages.add) and includes only essential details: input sources, return value, and the allow_write flag. There is no filler or redundancy.

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 straightforward upload tool, the description covers the operation, input constraints, return type, and write requirement. Combined with the schema, it provides sufficient context even without an output schema or annotations. Minor details like failure handling are absent but not critical.

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 80%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the 'or' relationship between file_path and image_base64, and reiterates allow_write=true, but it does not add deeper meaning for parameters like name or dry_run beyond what the schema already describes.

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 specifies the operation as 'WRITE: adimages.add', names the resource (adimages), details input via local file path or base64, and states the return (AdImageHash for TextAd.AdImageHash). This distinguishes it from siblings like direct_upload_advideo.

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 gives clear context: this tool is for uploading ad images from a local file path or base64, and requires allow_write=true for actual mutation. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the input constraints effectively guide when to use it.

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