upload_library_graphic

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

Annotations only include destructiveHint=false. Description adds that graphics become publicly accessible, a behavioral outcome. But lacks details on rate limits, authorization needs, or consequences of uploading with same name.

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, concise and front-loaded. Every sentence adds value: purpose, allowed types, sources, and outcome. No extraneous words.

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?

Complex tool with 7 parameters and no output schema. Description does not explain the return value (e.g., graphic URL or ID) or size limit (10 MB base64 from schema). Missing key information for effective use.

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 each parameter already has a description. The tool description reiterates the two source options (URL vs base64) but adds no new semantic value beyond the schema.

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?

Description clearly states the tool uploads a graphic (JPEG, GIF, PNG) to a Qualtrics library from a public HTTPS URL or base64 bytes. It specifies allowed formats and sources, distinguishing it from sibling tools like delete_library_graphic.

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?

Says 'non-confidential' and notes public accessibility, giving some guidance on when to use. However, no explicit when or when-not to use, nor mentions of alternatives among siblings (e.g., other library uploads).

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