upload_image

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the action (upload), accepted inputs (file path or base64), and outcome (get a URL). It does not mention authentication, rate limits, or side effects, but for a simple upload tool this is minimally adequate.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. All information is essential and front-loaded.

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 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It explains the input choices and the return (URL), though it could specify the URL format or any additional return fields.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explicitly noting that filePath and base64Data are alternatives, and connecting the tool's purpose to the parameters (icon, banner, screenshots).

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's purpose: upload an image to TapTap server and get a URL. It specifies image types (icon, banner, screenshots) and the workflow context (before calling update_app_info), distinguishing it from sibling tools like upload_h5_game.

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 provides clear usage context: 'Use this to upload icon, banner, or screenshots before calling update_app_info.' It does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, but the context is sufficient for correct tool selection.

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