tokportal_upload_image_direct

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, which are minimal. The description adds that HEIF/HEIC may be converted to JPEG, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not disclose other behaviors like file size limits, required permissions, or what 'storage details' includes. With sparse annotations, the description carries some burden but doesn't fully cover it.

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, two sentences, and front-loaded with the primary action. It includes a relevant note about HEIF/HEIC conversion without unnecessary fluff. Slightly more detail could be added, but it's efficient.

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?

The tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and minimal annotations. The description covers the core action and a conversion detail but lacks information about return format, error cases, or prerequisites. For a direct upload tool, more context on expected behavior (e.g., file size limits, response structure) would improve completeness.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only mentioning the multipart/form-data nature and HEIF/HEIC conversion. It doesn't explain the purpose parameter's enum values or the idempotency_key usage beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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 uploads an image file directly via multipart/form-data and returns storage details. It distinguishes itself from siblings like tokportal_upload_image and tokportal_upload_image_from_url by emphasizing 'direct' upload, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with those alternatives.

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 implies usage for direct image uploads but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus tokportal_upload_image or tokportal_upload_image_from_url. It mentions HEIF/HEIC conversion, which provides some context, but lacks clear when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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