upload_image

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the successful return value (image_url) and its downstream use, but omits critical mutation-related details such as file size limits, network requirements, error scenarios, or idempotency.

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?

Two efficiently structured sentences convey the operation, destination, return value, and specific integration context without redundancy. Information is front-loaded and every clause earns its place.

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?

Without annotations or an output schema, the description adequately establishes the basic upload-to-note workflow but leaves gaps regarding error handling, supported file size limits, or the fact that parameters are mutually exclusive (though this is covered in the schema).

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, documenting all three parameters including their mutual exclusivity (二选一) and defaults. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, warranting the baseline score of 3.

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), destination (OSS), and return value (image_url). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying the integration point—creating image notes—linking it to the save_note workflow within the note-taking domain.

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?

It provides implied usage context by noting the return value is for the image_urls parameter when creating image notes, guiding the agent toward the correct workflow. However, it lacks explicit when/when-not guidance or comparison to siblings like get_upload_token or get_upload_config.

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