Upload screenshots

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context beyond that: the internal reserve/upload/commit flow and the Pro gating requirement. It still doesn't say whether existing screenshots are replaced or appended, which is the key destructive behavior.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with zero filler. The purpose is stated first, the notable internal behavior second, and the access constraint last.

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 destructive mutation with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies purpose, the multi-step Apple flow, and the Pro entitlement. It falls just short by not clarifying replace-vs-append semantics on existing screenshots.

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 all four parameters (app_id, display_type, files, locale) are already documented in the schema. The description only echoes the display_type and locale concepts without adding format or ordering detail beyond what the schema provides, so 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?

States a specific verb (upload) and resource (screenshots) scoped to a version localization and device display type, with a concrete example (APP_IPHONE_67). This clearly separates it from the IAP-specific sibling set_iap_review_screenshot, though it doesn't name an alternative explicitly.

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 scope ('version localization for a device display type') implies the usage context, and 'Pro feature' signals an entitlement gate. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not guidance and names no alternatives for placing screenshot assets.

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