Upload company logo

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

Annotations indicate a non-read-only, non-destructive write operation. The description adds context about the Paperclip operation and multipart compatibility, but does not disclose behavioral traits like error handling, idempotency implications, or side effects beyond the annotation hints.

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 (three sentences) and front-loads the purpose. There is no unnecessary verbosity, though the technical phrasing could be clearer for non-specialist agents.

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 description covers the basic purpose and technical details (OpenAPI, multipart). However, it omits important context such as file size limits, allowed formats, whether the operation replaces an existing logo, or what the output schema contains. For a file upload tool, these are relevant gaps.

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 67%, and the description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it notes that the upload body was omitted in the source spec and that this gateway provides multipart compatibility. This information is already present in the parameter descriptions.

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 title and description clearly state 'Upload company logo', specifying the action and resource. It is distinct from siblings as there is no other logo upload tool. However, the description does not explicitly differentiate from potentially related branding tools.

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 mentions authorization class but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any conditions or prerequisites for usage.

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