seeany_upload_asset

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

Annotations already indicate this is not read-only, and the description confirms the mutating upload behavior while adding the useful detail that it returns an asset id and URL. It does not disclose potential constraints like supported file types or size limits, but for a simple upload tool this is reasonably transparent.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the core action and outcome, with no filler or redundant detail. Every word 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?

For a single-parameter upload tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the action, the input path concept, and the return values (asset id and URL). The relationship to later generation is also mentioned, making the tool self-contained enough for correct invocation.

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% and the single parameter file_path is already described as 'Absolute or workspace-relative local image path.' The description adds only the word 'local' and 'product image,' which largely restates schema information rather than adding new parameter meaning. Baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Upload'), a resource ('local product image'), and a concrete outcome ('return an asset id and URL for later generation'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like seeany_download_assets and seeany_generate_product_image.

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 phrase 'for later generation' gives clear contextual guidance on when to use this tool, positioning it as a prerequisite step before image generation. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the purpose is clear enough for an agent to select it correctly.

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