Upload backing image

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that no dedicated schema is published, which is useful, but it does not state side effects, asynchronous behavior, or what the upload trigger does beyond the name. For a mutating action, this is a significant transparency gap.

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 concise, front-loads the purpose, and then provides necessary caveats in a second sentence. The doc link is a bit long but useful. It 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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, a trigger action should explain what happens after the call. The description offers a fallback for schema discovery and a docs link, making it partially complete. But it omits behavioral context such as async execution, required permissions, or expected response. It is adequate but not thorough.

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 coverage is 50%: 'extra' has a meaningful description, but 'name' only has a type. The description adds value by explaining that extra fields are merged verbatim and by pointing to a way to discover the full body shape. However, it does not clarify the 'name' parameter beyond what the schema shows.

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 'Trigger backing image upload,' which names a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from sibling tools like backingimage_create or backingimage_cleanup because 'upload' is a unique operation. The action is immediately understandable.

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?

While it doesn't explicitly compare against alternatives, the operation is unique among siblings, so no exclusion is needed. It provides concrete invocation guidance: check the deployed schema via longhorn_describe_resource_type or pass fields via extra. The context is clear enough for an agent to proceed.

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