upload_article_image

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a URL, which is important for invoking it, but does not mention potential file restrictions, overwrite behavior, or authentication requirements. For a simple upload, this is adequate but not rich.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence delivers the essential information (action, context, return value) without unnecessary words. Every word earns its place.

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 one-parameter upload tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently covers purpose and expected result. It does not detail file format limits or edge cases, but the simplicity of the tool and clear schema make this adequate for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage of the single parameter (filePath) with a clear description ('Absolute path to the image file'). The tool description adds no additional parameter-level semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 a specific action ('Upload'), resource ('an image'), and context ('for use INSIDE article content'), plus the return value ('returns URL'). This distinguishes it from the sibling upload_cover_image by emphasizing 'inside' content.

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 phrase 'INSIDE article content' implies this tool is for inline images rather than cover images, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. The guidance is implied, not directly stated.

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