upload_internal_app_sharing_apk

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the read-only mode restriction ('Disabled in read-only mode'), which is valuable but incomplete. It doesn't mention confirmation requirements, potential validation checks on package_name/apk_path, or what response the user gets. As a mutation tool with no annotation support, this is a transparency gap.

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 sentences, front-loaded purpose, no fluff. The read-only note is useful. Minor: could use a bit more on usage context but it's efficient.

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?

Simple tool with 2 documented parameters and an output schema. The description covers core function and a key restriction. But it doesn't distinguish from sibling 'upload_apk' or 'upload_internal_app_sharing_bundle', and doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., app must exist in internal sharing). Given complexity is low, this is adequate but not complete.

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%, so parameters are already documented. The description adds no extra semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool uploads an APK to internal app sharing, using a clear verb+resource structure ('Upload an APK to internal app sharing'). It differentiates from siblings like upload_apk and upload_bundle by naming 'internal app sharing' explicitly, though it does not contrast with upload_internal_app_sharing_bundle (which uploads a 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?

The description provides a clear context (internal app sharing) but does not explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like upload_apk or upload_bundle. The 'Disabled in read-only mode' note hints at operational context but doesn't specify when this tool should be preferred.

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