upload_translation_key_screenshot_file

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

Annotation Contradiction: the description states 'Replaces the existing screenshot if one exists,' which is an overwrite/destructive operation, yet destructiveHint is false. Per MCP conventions destructiveHint covers overwrite, so an agent trusting the annotation may wrongly assume the prior screenshot is preserved. The description is otherwise honest about replacement and the missing-key error, but the contradiction forces a low score.

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 purpose sentence is front-loaded and the two-bullet layout efficiently covers requirements, constraints, and side effects. There is minor redundancy with the schema (file format/size repeated), but every element earns its place and the overall size is appropriate.

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 preconditions, file constraints, replacement side effect, and the error case, which is solid for a 3-parameter mutation tool. However, with no output schema it omits what the caller gets back on success, and it never addresses the sibling alternatives, which is a meaningful gap given upload_translation_key_screenshot and upload_translation_key_screenshots_bulk exist.

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 the baseline is 3. The description essentially restates what the schema already documents (key required, filePath required with absolute path and PNG/JPG/JPEG max 4MB, namespace optional) without adding meaning beyond it. No harm, but no added value over the structured fields.

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 states a specific verb+resource+source: 'upload a screenshot for a translation key from a local file.' This clearly differentiates it from the sibling tools upload_translation_key_screenshot and upload_translation_key_screenshots_bulk, whose names alone suggest a non-file upload and a bulk operation respectively. An agent can confidently select this tool without opening the schema.

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 gives clear invocation prerequisites (key and filePath required, namespace optional, absolute path with format/size constraints) and one error condition. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over its near-identical siblings upload_translation_key_screenshot and upload_translation_key_screenshots_bulk; differentiation is left to inference from the tool name rather than stated.

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