upload_screenshots

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

With no annotations provided, the description must convey behavioral context. It does disclose the reserve/upload/commit flow, indicating a stateful write operation, but it omits important details such as prerequisites (e.g., an existing version/localization), potential side effects (committing is likely irreversible), or rate limits. The description is not transparent enough for a mutation tool without annotation support.

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?

The description is two concise sentences (plus a short 'Pro feature' tag) with the main verb and resource front-loaded. No wasted words; it conveys purpose, scope, and a key behavioral trait without redundancy.

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?

The tool has moderate complexity (4 params, no output schema) and no annotations. The description explains the core purpose and flow but does not mention return values, preconditions (e.g., which display types are valid, whether a version must already exist), or how many screenshots are required per display type. While the schema fills in parameter details, the operational context is incomplete.

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% — each parameter already has a clear description (e.g., 'Absolute paths to PNG/JPEG screenshot files, in order'). The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting, which is the case here.

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: 'Upload screenshots to a version localization for a device display type' with an example. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like upload_binary or set_iap_review_screenshot by focusing on screenshots and the localization/display-type target.

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 clear context for when to use the tool (uploading screenshots for a specific display type in a version localization) and notes 'Handles Apple's reserve/upload/commit flow', which signals a multi-step process. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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