Upload note.com eyecatch image

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses helpful behaviors: noteKey resolution 'through draft detail', default dimensions 1280x670, and the verify option to 'read back compact note state after upload.' However, it omits side effects (e.g., overwriting an existing eyecatch), authentication requirements, or the response structure when verify is false. Thus it is moderately transparent but leaves significant gaps.

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 four sentences, each adding value: purpose + endpoint, input options, size defaults, and verify behavior. It is densely informative with no filler, and key information is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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?

The tool has 10 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The description explains the core workflow well but leaves out parameter semantics for fit, targetSize, and responseFormat, and never describes the default response (only verify's read-back). This incompleteness is notable given the tool's complexity, though the description is otherwise strong for the main use case.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains noteId/noteKey, imagePath/imageUrl, and width/height defaults. But it does not clarify the meaning of 'fit' (none/center-crop/contain), 'targetSize' (only note-eyecatch), or 'responseFormat' (summary/full). Given 10 parameters, the description covers only about half, so it does not fully compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 tool's function: 'Uploads an eyecatch/cover image for a note via POST /v1/image_upload/note_eyecatch.' This is a specific verb+resource and distinguishes it from sibling note management tools. The title 'Upload note.com eyecatch image' reinforces the purpose unambiguously.

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 provides clear input guidelines: 'Provide numeric noteId or noteKey' and 'Provide imagePath or imageUrl,' which indicates how to select identifiers and image sources. It also explains that noteKey is resolved through draft detail, implying usage on drafts. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools or state when not to use it, but given the absence of similar upload tools, this is acceptable.

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