upload_internal_app_sharing_bundle

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It explicitly notes 'Disabled in read-only mode', which is a useful operational constraint. However, it doesn't mention any other side effects (e.g., publishing, link generation) or permission requirements.

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 concise sentences with no redundant detail. Purpose and a key constraint are mentioned directly.

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 simple upload operation, the description covers the main purpose and a constraint. With an output schema present, it need not detail return values. However, it could have mentioned what the upload makes available (e.g., a shareable link) or any limitations, but this is a minor gap.

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?

Input schema already describes both parameters ('package_name' and 'bundle_path') clearly. The description adds no additional semantic detail beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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?

Description clearly states the action (upload), target (.aab bundle), and destination (internal app sharing). This differentiates it from sibling tools like upload_bundle and upload_internal_app_sharing_apk by specifying the file type and purpose.

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 ('internal app sharing') but does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives or any prerequisites. Sibling tools like upload_apk and upload_bundle exist, but no comparative guidance is given.

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