upload_image

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

With no annotations, the description bears full transparency burden. It discloses the CDN destination, max file size (10MB), and input formats. However, it omits details like allowed image types, idempotency, overwrite behavior, or response format beyond 'CDN URL'.

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?

Four sentences, no wasted words. Critical information (purpose, output, input options, size limit) is front-loaded. Highly concise and structured for quick parsing.

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 upload tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, input constraints, and downstream use. However, since no output schema exists, a more precise description of the returned URL format would improve completeness.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that image_url expects a 'Public URL' and image_base64 accepts 'raw or data URI' base64, elaborating on the schema's simple type strings.

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 action ('Upload an image'), the target resource ('Photo AI Studio CDN'), and the outcome ('Returns a CDN URL'). It explicitly names the downstream tools that use this URL (generate_photo, edit_image, create_video), distinguishing it from those sibling tools.

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 when to use this tool (to upload an image for later use by other tools) and specifies accepted input formats (URL or base64). However, it does not explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name alternatives, though no alternative upload tool exists among siblings.

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