upload_image

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals that the tool uploads to a new edit and commits, and notes read-only mode is disabled. However, it does not mention side effects like overwriting existing images or permission requirements, so transparency is partial but not absent.

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 concise sentences that are front-loaded with the primary action and include a crucial constraint. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or redundancy.

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?

The tool is relatively simple, and the schema covers all parameters. The description, along with the output schema, provides enough context to understand the operation (upload+commit) and the read-only restriction. It doesn't detail return values, but that's covered by the output 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no new parameter semantics beyond confirming PNG/JPEG support, which is already in the schema's image_path description. It doesn't explain any parameter interplay or constraints beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Upload') and resource ('a store-listing image (PNG or JPEG)') and clearly states it commits to a new edit. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like upload_apk or upload_bundle, which upload different asset types.

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 clearly indicates when to use this tool (for store-listing images) and provides a when-not constraint ('Disabled in read-only mode'). It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the asset type is unambiguous enough for an agent to choose this over upload_apk or upload_expansion_file.

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