ghost_upload_image

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'upload an image' and that it returns a URL, but omits important details such as whether the operation is idempotent, any file size/type restrictions, permission requirements, or what happens if multiple sources (filePath, imageUrl, base64Data) are provided simultaneously. This is a significant transparency gap for a write operation.

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 two sentences with no fluff. The primary action and purpose are front-loaded, and the return type is stated. Every word earns its place.

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 5 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should guide the agent on parameter selection and constraints. It fails to explain how to choose among filePath, imageUrl, or base64Data, whether multiple can be used, or what happens if none are provided. The return URL is stated but error handling and edge cases are absent, making the tool under-specified for reliable invocation.

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 coverage is 100%, so each parameter is already documented. The description adds value by summarizing the three source options (local path, URL, base64) and mentioning the return URL, but it does not clarify how the parameters interact (e.g., mutual exclusivity, precedence) or the meaning of 'purpose' beyond its enum. It meets the baseline for 100% 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 action (upload), the resource (image to Ghost CMS), and the three input methods (local file, URL, base64). It also specifies the output (public Ghost image URL). This is specific and unambiguous, and no sibling tool offers image upload, so there is no confusion.

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 feature images or inline content, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. Since there are no similar sibling tools, this is less critical, but there is no guidance on whether to prefer this over other methods or any exclusions.

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