upload_and_generate

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

No annotations provided, so description must cover behavioral traits. It mentions returning immediately with operation_id and the async flow, but lacks details on authentication, rate limits, file handling, or side effects. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

Concise at three sentences, with the first stating purpose and the second enumerating sub-steps. Front-loaded but the enumeration adds slight verbosity. Still efficient overall.

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 6 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description covers the basic flow but lacks details on error handling, supported file formats, or alternatives. Output schema helps, but more contextual guidance would improve completeness.

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 baseline 3. The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema; it only reiterates the 'local file' concept already in the schema. No extra semantics.

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 purpose: upload a local file and generate a 3D world end-to-end. It distinguishes from sibling tools like generate_world_from_image by emphasizing the full upload flow.

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 use when you have a local file to upload and generate, but does not explicitly exclude alternatives like generate_world_from_media_asset for already uploaded files. Context is clear, but no when-not guidance.

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