Add photos to a draft

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses important behavioral traits: originals on disk are never modified or moved, and adding photos clears stored validation. These are non-obvious side effects and safety guarantees that an agent needs to know before invoking the 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?

Three concise sentences: the first states the core action, the second addresses file safety, and the third gives a domain constraint and a side-effect warning. Every sentence carries useful information with no filler.

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 simple two-parameter mutation tool with annotations and no output schema, the description is complete enough. It covers the operation, source-file safety, business limits, and the validation reset side effect, leaving no major ambiguity for agent decision-making.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by clarifying that photos are copied, not moved, and that the draft has a 15-photo limit. It also implies draftId identifies the target draft. It does not detail every parameter, but it provides meaningful semantic context beyond the raw 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 resource: 'Copies more photos into an existing draft.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like update_listing_draft or validate_listing by scoping it to photo addition rather than general draft editing or validation.

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 when to use the tool: when an existing draft needs additional photos. It also provides practical usage context via the Leboncoin 15-photo limit and the guidance that 3+ photos increase views. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the context is clear.

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