上传本地参考图

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

Goes beyond annotations by disclosing the 5 MB cap, accepted formats, that it sends to the configured Seedance API (open-world), and the exact return payload (asset id, mime, byte count). Annotations already cover the read-only/idempotency profile, so the remaining gaps (auth specifics) are minor.

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?

Three tight sentences: purpose/limit first, then return values, then integration instruction. Zero filler, and the actionable ordering guidance is front-loaded where it matters.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description explains the return shape (asset id, mime, byte count), plus size/format constraints and how to use the ID. Nothing an agent needs to invoke or consume this tool is missing.

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% and documents image_path as an absolute local path, so the baseline is 3. The description adds file-level constraints (allowed formats, 5 MB max) not encoded in the schema, which meaningfully improves the agent's ability to satisfy the parameter correctly.

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) and resource (local reference image) with concrete format (PNG/JPEG/WEBP) and size (5 MB) scope. An agent can immediately distinguish this asset-preparation step from siblings like create_video or download_video.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent how to consume the result: put IDs into reference_asset_ids in the same order as @Image1/@Image2 in the prompt. This is clear downstream guidance; it doesn't state explicit exclusions versus alternatives, but the workflow position is unambiguous.

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