tokportal_upload_image_direct

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

Annotations are largely uninformative (readOnlyHint=false, etc.), so the description bears the transparency burden. It adds one useful behavioral detail: HEIF/HEIC may be converted to JPEG. However, it does not disclose whether the upload is synchronous, size limits, error handling, or idempotency behavior despite the parameter 'idempotency_key'. The conversion note is valuable but insufficient for full 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no redundant information. Every sentence is meaningful and the description is appropriately sized for a simple upload tool.

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 4 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core action, HTTP method, return type, and a notable conversion behavior. However, it lacks guidance on required fields (bundle_id, file_path) and error conditions. Given the many sibling upload tools, more context on when to use this specific variant 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 baseline is 3. The description adds context about the multipart/form-data nature and conversion behavior, which relates to file_path. It does not add explicit meaning for each parameter beyond what the schema provides (e.g., defaults, purpose enum values). The description's mention of 'returns storage details' is not in the schema but is a helpful addition.

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 action ('Upload an image file directly'), the resource (image file), the method (multipart/form-data), and the result (returns storage details). It also mentions a specific behavior (HEIF/HEIC conversion). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like tokportal_upload_image or tokportal_upload_image_from_url, though the word 'directly' hints at the distinction.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives (e.g., upload_image_from_url, upload_image). It does not mention prerequisites, such as requiring a valid bundle_id or that file_path must be local. No when-not-to-use or exclusion criteria are given.

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