Upload deobfuscation/mapping file

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the downstream effect (Play Console de-obfuscating crash stack traces) and the accepted file types, but omits key mutation context: that an active edit is required, that the upload must be committed to take effect, and whether it replaces existing files. The effect disclosure is valuable but lifecycle constraints are missing.

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 well-formed sentence that front-loads the action and file types and ends with the reason for the upload. No redundant or filler content.

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?

No output schema exists and all five required parameters are documented in the schema, so the description need not explain returns. It covers what the tool does and why, but leaves the surrounding edit-lifecycle context (create/commit edit) implicit, which an agent assembling a release workflow would benefit from.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all five parameters (including editId, filePath, apkVersionCode, and the deobfuscationFileType enum) are fully documented in the schema. The description reinforces versionCode and file-type semantics but adds no format or syntax detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the 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?

States a specific verb (Uploads) and resource (ProGuard/R8 mapping file or native debug symbols) and scopes it to an APK/bundle versionCode. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling upload tools like play_upload_bundle, play_upload_apk, and play_upload_image, which handle different artifacts.

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 implies usage context (tied to a versionCode for de-obfuscating crashes) but gives no explicit when/when-not guidance, nor does it mention the required edit workflow (play_create_edit → upload → play_commit_edit) that the editId parameter implies. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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