upload_bundle

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool commits to a new edit and is disabled in read-only mode, but it does not elaborate on permissions, side effects on existing edits, or failure modes. It provides some transparency but lacks depth.

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 two short sentences: the first states the core purpose, the second gives a key constraint. No redundancy, front-loaded, and 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?

Given a simple upload tool with full parameter descriptions and an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and a constraint. However, the large sibling set and the mention of 'new edit' and 'commit' leave some ambiguity about how this tool differs from similar upload paths, so it is not perfect.

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% coverage, with both bundle_path and package_name described in detail. The description adds only '.aab' which is already in the schema. It does not need to compensate for schema gaps, earning the baseline 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 an Android App Bundle (.aab) to a new edit and commit it.' It specifies the resource (.aab file) and distinct actions (upload to edit, commit), which differentiates it from sibling tools like upload_apk and upload_internal_app_sharing_bundle.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or alternatives are provided. The only guidance is 'Disabled in read-only mode,' which is a constraint but does not help the agent choose between this and related upload tools such as upload_apk or upload_internal_app_sharing_bundle.

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