create_document_image

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses non-obvious IT Glue sanitisation behavior and the exact base64 format required, including stripping the data: prefix. It also warns that this is the only way to embed an image in a document body, which annotations alone would not convey.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: purpose, encoding requirement, sanitisation rationale, and next workflow step. The most important information is front-loaded and the rationale is compact rather than padded.

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 three-parameter upload tool with no nested objects, the description covers purpose, format constraints, environmental behavior, and the required follow-up publish step. The absence of an output schema is not a significant gap because the workflow continuation is stated.

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 100%, so the schema already explains document_id, file_name, and content. The description reinforces the raw-base64 requirement but adds little beyond what the schema's content property already states.

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 a specific action and resource: 'Upload an image into an IT Glue document so it can be shown inline in the document body.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling document-editing tools and states the intended outcome.

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 why this tool is necessary (sanitiser strips <svg> and rejects data: URIs) and gives the follow-up step 'Call publish_document after editing sections to reference it.' It does not explicitly name create_attachment as an alternative for non-inline images, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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