vizcom_upload_sketch

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, openWorld=true, idempotent=false, and destructive=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context that the file must live inside VIZCOM_INPUT_ROOT and that the result becomes a visible editable image, but it says nothing about duplicate-upload behavior (relevant given idempotent=false) or size/format limits.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the destination and the path constraint come early. It is efficient, though it could have spent a few more words on the undocumented parameters.

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 five-parameter mutation tool with zero schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers only two parameters and omits placement (x/y) and naming semantics. An agent could call it, but only by guessing at half the inputs.

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 0% across five parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It clarifies 'file' (a PNG inside VIZCOM_INPUT_ROOT) and 'workbenchId' (the target workbench), but x, y, and name are left entirely undocumented in both schema and description.

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?

States a specific verb (upload), resource (a PNG), and destination (a workbench as a visible editable image), which is concrete enough to distinguish it from render/download siblings. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the close sibling vizcom_import_image, leaving ambiguity about which to pick.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites beyond the VIZCOM_INPUT_ROOT constraint, and never mentions the obvious alternative vizcom_import_image. An agent must infer the selection criteria from the name alone.

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