add_product_images

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key side effects: images become immediately visible, URLs must be publicly accessible, and quantity limits depend on plan. It also lists the API endpoint and return structure. Missing permission or failure details, but the provided transparency is solid.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, API, return, side effects). Each sentence provides useful information without redundancy, and the purpose is front-loaded with a [WRITE] marker.

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 simple 2-parameter write tool with no output schema, the description provides a complete picture: what it does, how it works, what the API call is, what the response looks like, and side effects. No critical gaps.

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% for both parameters, so the schema already explains the inputs. The description adds little beyond the schema, mainly repeating that URLs must be public, which is also in the schema. Baseline 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 clearly states the tool adds images to a product by uploading image URLs, with the specific detail that images are appended to the existing album. This distinguishes it from siblings like delete_product_images and update_product.

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?

It provides explicit context for use ('適用於新增商品展示圖、情境圖等' – suitable for product display and context images). However, it does not mention when not to use this tool or alternative tools like upload_media, so it lacks exclusions/alternatives.

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