tokportal_upload_image

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

The description discloses key behaviors: the upload URL is short-lived, the response contains a secret not stored in the replay ledger, and idempotency keys are rejected with a specific error. This adds value beyond the annotations, which only set readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false. No contradiction with annotations.

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 concise (4 sentences) and front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds specific value: what it does, response contents, idempotency key restriction, and ledger behavior. No unnecessary words.

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?

Despite good annotation coverage and schema details, the description lacks important context: how long the URL is valid, how to use the token, any file size limits, or the purpose of the 'purpose' field. The tool returns a signed URL and token, but the description does not explain the next steps. For a tool with no output schema, more completeness is needed.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage (the 'body' parameter is described as JSON, and 'content_type' has a regex and description). However, the tool description adds no meaning about parameters—it does not mention required fields (filename, content_type, bundle_id) or the purpose enum. The schema already documents these, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Create' and resource 'image upload URL', and mentions it returns a signed upload URL and token. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like tokportal_upload_image_direct or tokportal_upload_image_from_url, which could cause confusion about which to use.

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 only warns against sending an Idempotency-Key header, but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., direct upload, URL-based upload). There is no mention of prerequisites, typical workflow, or when to avoid this tool.

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