Quady3D upload file

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world and non-destructive, and the description adds real value beyond them: the 8 MiB cap, the three accepted formats, the allowed-project-root restriction, the absence of a generation charge, and the 30-minute expiry. What it omits is the consequence of the temporary upload (what handle comes back and whether it must be consumed before expiry).

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 dense sentences, zero filler, with the file-type and size constraints front-loaded and the cost/expiry facts second. Every clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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 one-parameter upload tool with no output schema, the description covers constraints, cost and lifetime well. The remaining gap is the return value — since no output schema exists, the agent has no way to know whether it receives an upload token, URL or ID to feed into quady3d_create_job.

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?

The single parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must carry the load. It does add meaning — the value must point at an allowed project root and must resolve to PNG/JPG/WebP under 8 MiB — but it never states whether file_path is absolute or relative, or what constitutes an 'allowed project root', leaving format ambiguity.

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') plus the exact resource (one PNG, JPG or WebP file) and its constraints, so an agent can tell this apart from quady3d_download_asset or quady3d_create_job. It never names a sibling or explains the relationship (e.g. that an upload must precede job creation), so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

'One explicitly selected' hints that the file must come from the user rather than being generated, and 'from an allowed project root' implies a precondition. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not, no mention of alternatives such as quady3d_download_asset, and no statement of what to do if the file is rejected. Usage is implied rather than instructed.

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