upload_asset

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only states the basic action ('upload'). It does not disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, size limits, whether the operation is idempotent, or what happens if the asset already exists. For a mutation tool, this 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?

The description is a single, concise sentence. It contains no filler or redundant information. Every word contributes to the core meaning.

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?

Given no output schema, no annotations, and low parameter coverage, the description leaves significant gaps. It does not explain the return value, error conditions, or any side effects (e.g., overwriting existing assets). An agent relying solely on this description would lack critical information for correct invocation.

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 only 25% (only content_base64 is described). The description does not add any parameter-level details beyond the schema. For example, it does not clarify what values content_type can take or the expected format for filename. With low coverage, the description should compensate but does not.

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 verb 'upload', the resource 'asset', and the target 'project'. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like list_assets and delete_asset. However, it does not elaborate on what constitutes an asset (e.g., image types), but the action is unambiguous.

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, such as when to upload versus when to accept a preview. There are no conditions or prerequisites mentioned.

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