Upload Asset

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It reveals the internal 3-step process (reserve -> presigned PUT -> complete) and the return format. This is good transparency, though it could mention potential side effects like overwriting an existing asset with the same key.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose and process, then details parameters. Every part adds value with no wasted words.

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 the 5 parameters (100% schema coverage), no output schema, and moderate complexity, the description is mostly complete. It explains the return value and process. However, it lacks guidance on error cases (e.g., what happens if both image sources are provided) and does not specify if the asset key is auto-generated or derived from the filename.

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%, but the description adds significant value by explaining the process, the mutual exclusivity of file_path/data_base64, and the return format. It clarifies the 'path' parameter's role as a document association for quota/scoping, which is not in the schema's parameter description.

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 verb 'Upload a single image as an asset' and specifies the resource (an image asset). It distinguishes from sibling tools (e.g., save_markdown, append_to_markdown) by focusing on image upload and returning a markdown-compatible reference.

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 explains when to use the tool: for embedding an image in markdown. It explicitly states the mutually exclusive requirement of `data_base64` or `file_path`. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives for other asset types.

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