swebsy_upload_asset

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers: it discloses the file source (agent's filesystem), the return value (src), the storage location (project and export), and even SVG sanitization. This is comprehensive and exceeds typical transparency.

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?

Every sentence adds necessary information: action, uniqueness, filesystem source, and persistence. The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and remains informative without being verbose.

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 two simple parameters and no output schema, the description is fully complete. It explains how to call it, what it returns, and what constraints exist, covering all that an agent needs to use it correctly.

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?

Even though schema coverage is 100%, the description adds significant value: it requires an absolute path, lists allowed file types and size limits, and advises preferring SVG while noting sanitization. These details go well beyond the schema's own 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 description states a specific verb and resource ('Upload a local image file into the open site's asset library'), and it explicitly differentiates from siblings by declaring this is the ONLY way to get your own imagery, clearly distinguishing it from asset listing/deletion 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?

It provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool (to get your own imagery) and why it matters (empty src yields a stock photo), and it clarifies the file must come from the agent's own filesystem. It effectively communicates the primary use case without leaving alternatives ambiguous.

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