Upload an image file to the pet store API. Use this tool when you need to add a picture to a pet record, enabling visual identification in your application.
Uploads an image.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | No | Response from the tool |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark this as destructive and non-idempotent, and the description adds no behavioral detail beyond the obvious write action implied by 'Uploads'. It does not mention overwrite behavior, side effects, authentication requirements, or what happens to existing images.
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 short sentence with no filler, but it is closer to under-specification than to genuinely helpful conciseness. It does not waste words, but it also provides very little operational substance beyond the verb and object.
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?
With no input parameters, no usage guidance, and no explanation of how an image is supplied, an agent cannot confidently invoke this tool correctly. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the gap in how the upload actually works remains significant.
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?
The tool has zero parameters and zero required fields, so there is no parameter ambiguity for the description to clarify. The schema already fully covers the argument surface, and with no parameters the description is not expected to compensate for missing parameter documentation.
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 uses a clear verb ('Uploads') and a clear resource ('an image'), making it immediately understandable as an image-upload operation. It is reasonably distinguishable from petstore sibling operations like addPet or createUser, although it does not specify the destination or association context.
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?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus related petstore operations, nor any mention of prerequisites, pairing with pet creation, or when not to use it. The agent is left to infer context from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.