Upload an image asset

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

Beyond annotations, the description only notes that the upload body is omitted in the source spec and that multipart compatibility is provided. It does not disclose success behavior, error conditions, or any side effects of uploading an image.

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 but repeats the title. It front-loads technical details without a clear hierarchy, and the structure could be improved by placing core purpose and usage first.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description does not mention what the response contains (e.g., asset ID). It also omits file format support, size limits, and error handling, leaving the agent with incomplete context.

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 description adds context about the multipart fallback and the omitted upload body, which helps explain the body and multipart parameters. However, it does not explain the path parameter (companyId) or provide full usage details for the multipart structure.

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 uploads an image asset, matching the title. However, it uses jargon like 'Paperclip operation' and does not explicitly distinguish from other upload tools such as pc_post_companies_by_company_id_logo.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or context for selecting this specific upload endpoint.

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