vk_photos_get_messages_upload_server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'returns' without stating whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, or has side effects. The lack of transparency forces reliance on assumptions about safety and side effects.

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 a single, focused sentence that conveys the core function. It is concise and front-loaded, but could be slightly improved by including a brief usage hint without adding bulk.

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, the description should explain the tool's role in the upload workflow, what the server address is used for, and the expected response format. The single sentence fails to provide this context, leaving the agent underinformed.

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 schema already covers peer_id with a detailed description of format per destination type, achieving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no parameter-level information, so it meets the baseline without adding value.

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 returns a server address for photo upload in a private message. It distinguishes from siblings like vk_photos_get_chat_upload_server and vk_photos_get_wall_upload_server by specifying 'private message for a user'. However, the mention of 'for a user' is slightly inaccurate as peer_id can also represent chats and communities, as clarified in parameter description.

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 siblings like vk_photos_get_chat_upload_server or vk_photos_get_upload_server. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage from tool names alone.

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