engine_image_add

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full behavioral burden and meets it well: it discloses the file/content body alternatives, the overwrite flag requirement, and the fact that files have no version history. This prevents an agent from assuming overwrite is automatic.

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?

Three focused sentences, each adding distinct information, with the primary purpose front-loaded. There is no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 simple 4-parameter schema and absence of annotations or output schema, this description covers the key behavioral and input-selection facts. An agent can construct a correct add or overwrite call from the text alone.

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 0%, but the description compensates by explaining every parameter: path (full target), file (path on this machine), content (text for svg), and overwrite (only true overwrites). This gives the agent everything needed to choose the correct body mode.

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 opens with 'Upload a file of the images tree', naming a specific verb and resource. It further clarifies that path is the full target, folder and name at once, which differentiates this file-add tool from sibling directory or tree-load tools.

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?

It clearly conveys when to use the tool: uploading an image file into the images tree, with path specifying the complete target. It does not explicitly list exclusions or point to sibling alternatives such as engine_image_rename or engine_image_remove, so it misses the top bar for explicit routing.

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