plane-workspace-logo-upload

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It indicates a write operation but omits important behaviors: whether the upload overwrites an existing logo, required permissions, error handling, or side effects. The presigned flow mention adds some context but is insufficient.

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 concise, front-loaded sentences with no redundancy. Every sentence adds a distinct fact about the tool's purpose and mechanism.

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 single-parameter upload tool with no output schema, the description covers the core action and mechanism. It could mention the return value (e.g., success status) or that the logo replaces any existing one, but overall it is adequately complete.

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 coverage is 100% and the parameter description in the schema already states 'Absolute path to logo image file'. The description adds marginal value by reiterating 'local file path' and mentioning the presigned upload flow, but does not clarify format constraints or size limits.

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 specific verb-resource pair ('Upload a new workspace logo') and mentions unique details like local file path and presigned upload flow with entity_type WORKSPACE_LOGO, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like plane-asset-upload.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., plane-asset-upload for general assets), nor does it mention prerequisites or constraints beyond accepting a local file path.

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