upload_image

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It states the return value and a usage caveat, but it doesn't address side effects (e.g., whether the upload persists, size limits, file type restrictions, idempotency) or clarify that exactly one of url/path should be provided even though the schema marks both optional. The provided warning is useful but incomplete.

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?

Two sentences with zero filler: the action, output, intended consumer, and an exclusion are all included. The most important information is front-loaded and every clause earns its place.

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 combination of schema and description covers most essentials: the schema fully documents parameters and the description states the return value and intended workflow. However, the description doesn't resolve the schema's ambiguity around optional parameters—an agent could call it with no arguments, and the description doesn't clarify that url or path is required. For an upload tool, that's a meaningful gap.

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 the schema already documents both parameters. The description simply maps 'HTTPS URL' to url and 'local image file' to path, confirming the correspondence but adding no new semantic depth beyond the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and object: 'Upload a local image file or HTTPS URL and return an assetId for generate_model.' This clearly states what the tool does and differentiates it from siblings by naming the intended downstream consumer and explicitly excluding download_model and get_task.

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 gives clear workflow guidance by stating the assetId is meant for generate_model and warning not to pass it to download_model or get_task. This effectively tells an agent when to use the tool, though it doesn't mention alternatives for upload scenarios or when not to use it beyond the negative id pointer.

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