tokportal_upload_image

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

The description provides significant behavioral detail beyond the boolean annotations: it warns not to send Idempotency-Key, explains that the successful response contains a secret and is not stored in the replay ledger, and specifies the rejection code and timing. This is high-value security-sensitive context not available from the annotations alone.

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 four sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence adds essential information. There is no filler or redundant repetition of schema/annotation data.

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?

With no output schema, the description sufficiently covers the key return values (signed URL, upload token, secret), the short-lived nature, and an important error condition. It does not describe the exact response JSON shape or follow-up upload mechanics, but it is adequate for invoking the tool 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?

The schema already documents the body parameter and its nested fields with 100% coverage, including the content_type pattern and purpose enum. The description adds no parameter-level semantics beyond the context of creating an image upload URL, so the baseline score of 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Create an image upload URL.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling image/video upload tools by indicating it creates a signed URL rather than performing an actual upload.

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 tool's use case is implied through 'Create an image upload URL' and 'Returns a short-lived signed upload URL and upload token,' but it never explicitly states when to choose this over tokportal_upload_image_direct or tokportal_upload_image_from_url. There is clear context but no exclusion or alternative guidance.

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