play_upload_graphics

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that uploads are direct (no Console click-through) and gives dimensions for icon and feature graphic, but it does not disclose whether the upload overwrites existing images, required permissions, side effects, or success/failure behavior. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 sentences with no fluff. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and scope, while the second adds a useful comparative note. Every word 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 tool is relatively simple (3 params, no output schema), and the description covers the main purpose and some specifics. However, given the lack of annotations, it misses important context such as authentication requirements, overwrite behavior, and constraints for image types. It's adequate but not comprehensive.

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 33% (only file_path has a description). The description compensates partially by clarifying image types (e.g., '512x512 hi-res icon' and '1024x500 feature graphic') and listing examples of screenshots. However, it does not explain the language parameter or all enum values (e.g., sevenInchScreenshots, tvBanner), leaving some 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Upload a store listing image' with specific types (screenshots, icon, feature graphic). This distinguishes it from siblings like play_upload_bundle (which likely uploads the app binary) and play_update_listing (which handles text). The verb and resource are explicit.

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 implies usage for uploading images to a store listing, and the note about 'no Console click-through needed' gives context about when to prefer this method. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the sibling tools or mention any exclusions/alternatives.

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