companies_upload_logo

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does explain the behavioral outcome (logo appears on PDF documents) and the format/size constraints. However, it doesn't disclose what happens on overwrite (replacing an existing logo), auth/permission requirements, or any destructive implications—which matters since companies_delete_logo exists as a sibling. The description conveys the upload+effect but omits replacement/overwrite behavior.

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 compact two-sentence structure that front-loads the primary action and follows with format/size constraints and the effect. Every sentence adds information: what the tool does, what's accepted, and the result. It could arguably note overwrite behavior in the same length, but as-is it's efficient with no filler.

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?

For a tool with 2 parameters, 100% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the key facts reasonably: accepted formats, size limit, and effect on PDFs. However, gaps include what happens on a failed upload, whether an existing logo is overwritten or must be deleted first (given the delete_logo sibling), and any response the tool returns. The absence of annotations makes these gaps more significant.

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 schema already documents both parameters (uuid = Company UUID, filePath = absolute path to the image file). The description adds the accepted formats and size limit for filePath, which is valuable context beyond the schema. However, it doesn't add meaning to 'uuid' beyond what the schema provides, so the added value is modest—consistent with the baseline 3 for high schema coverage.

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 a logo image for a company, with a specific verb (upload) and resource (logo for a company). It distinguishes from companies_delete_logo by being the upload counterpart, though it doesn't explicitly reference that sibling. The mention of accepted formats and the destination (PDF documents) adds useful specificity beyond just the name.

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 states what file types and sizes are accepted (PNG, JPG, SVG up to 2MB), which gives some usage constraints. However, it doesn't explain when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites like the company needing to exist or already be created. The context of where the logo appears (PDFs) helps but doesn't cover when-not-to-use scenarios.

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