upload_certified_image

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

Annotations already declare a non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world mutation. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the +6000px canvas compression fallback, the plugin-driven user confirmation, and the two-step confirmation it later mentions. It stops short of stating idempotency or auth requirements, so it is not fully exhaustive.

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?

Three sentences, each carrying distinct load: capability, return summary, and the compression/confirmation caveat plus next-step. Return values are front-loaded and nothing is redundant, though it is slightly dense.

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 a 100% covered schema and an existing output schema, the description does not need to explain return values, yet it still names them helpfully. Combined with the format list and the follow-up tool reference, an agent has what it needs; only permission/auth expectations are unaddressed.

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 documents all five parameters including the conditional confirm_code semantics. The description reinforces the confirm_code two-step flow implicitly but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 states a specific verb and resource (本地图片按原质量上传并认证) and enumerates supported formats, immediately distinguishing it from the sibling upload_certified_video. An agent can tell exactly what this does without opening the schema.

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?

It gives clear sequencing guidance, telling the agent that after upload it must use add_certified_asset_node to place the asset on the canvas, and describes the confirm-first flow for large images. It does not explicitly state exclusions versus siblings, but the image-vs-video split is self-evident.

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