upload_image

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose useful traits: accepted formats (PNG/JPG/SVG), a 6 MB ceiling, and that this is a genuine multipart upload rather than a URL reference. It says nothing about required permissions, whether file_path is resolved on the server’s filesystem, failure behavior, or what happens on size/format violations.

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?

Short and front-loaded, with the formats and size limit stated in the first sentence where they matter most. The trailing remark comparing this to the hosted Miro connector is meta-commentary that adds little for an agent deciding how to call the tool.

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 an 8-parameter mutation tool with zero annotation coverage and zero schema descriptions, the definition leaves too much unexplained: placement coordinates, sizing behavior, parent frame nesting, and permissions are all unaddressed. The output schema does relieve it of explaining return values, but the input side remains under-specified.

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% across 8 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. Only file_path gets indirect meaning ('local image file'); x, y, width, title, alt_text, and parent_frame_id are never explained — notably absent is any statement of the coordinate system for x/y or how omitted width behaves.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (upload a local image file to the board) plus accepted formats and a size cap, which cleanly separates it from the URL-based sibling create_image_from_url. It never names that sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (board access, file existence on disk), and no named alternative. The phrase 'local image file' and the note about being 'the main gap vs. the hosted Miro connector' hint that this is for local files rather than URLs, but the agent must infer the routing decision.

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