Upload image

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation/safety profile is covered. The description adds the genuinely useful 15 MB size cap (format is already in the schema's file_path description), but says nothing about whether the upload persists immediately or requires a subsequent commit, which matters for a non-idempotent write.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the format and size constraints are packed in efficiently. It is appropriately sized for the tool, though one clause about persistence behavior would not hurt.

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?

With no output schema, the description should carry more of the behavioral story. It covers format, size, and scope, but omits what happens after upload (persistence/commit model) and any permission requirements, which are material for a non-idempotent write tool.

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 schema already documents language, file_path, package_name, and validate_only. The description only gestures at 'the given type for a language' with no additional semantics for image_type's enum or the dry-run flag, so it does not exceed the schema baseline.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Uploads one listing image') plus key constraints (PNG/JPEG, max 15 MB) and the scoping dimensions (type, language). It is clearly distinguishable from upload_bundle or upload_deobfuscation_file by the 'listing image' resource, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. whether an edit/draft must exist first), and no routing to alternatives such as list_images or update_listing. Usage is only implied by the resource name.

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