companies_upload_logo

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value beyond that: accepted formats, a 2MB size ceiling, and the downstream effect that the image renders on invoices, proformas, delivery notes and receipts. It stops short of saying whether an existing logo is overwritten.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then constraints, then the visible effect. No filler and nothing an agent must scroll past to reach the operative information.

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 simple two-parameter upload with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers formats, size, and outcome. The remaining gap is whether the file path is resolved on the client or the server, and whether an existing logo is replaced or errors out.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented, and the format list partly duplicates the filePath description. The description does contribute the 2MB limit, which appears nowhere in the schema, making the constraint enforceable before a failed call.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Upload a logo image for a company'), which is unambiguous. It does not differentiate from the sibling companies_delete_logo or indicate that this replaces any existing logo, so the agent must infer the lifecycle relationship on its own.

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?

Usage is only implied by the purpose sentence; there is no explicit statement of when to call this versus companies_delete_logo, nor any prerequisite such as company ownership or permissions. The note about where the logo appears gives a hint of intent but is not guidance.

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