upload_cover_image

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing that images are automatically resized to a 640x480 maximum, converted to WebP, and synchronized across two repositories. This goes beyond a simple 'upload cover' statement and gives the agent concrete expectations about side effects.

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 short sentences with no filler: the first states the action and target, the second lists the transformations, and the third mentions the sync behavior. Every sentence adds distinct value.

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 moderately simple 5-parameter upload tool, the description covers the core behavior, transformations, target branch, and sync. It does not describe the return value or failure modes, but with no output schema and no annotations, those are notable but not critical gaps given the clarity of the operation.

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 the baseline is 3. The description does not add much parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, though the mention of WebP conversion and two-repo sync helps explain why image_path and the two tokens are needed.

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 a specific verb ('上传或更新'), resource ('游戏封面图片'), and target ('data 分支'), distinguishing it from sibling read-only tool get_cover_image and broader tool full_upload_game. It also adds key transformation details that define what the tool uniquely does.

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 when to use the tool: when uploading or updating a game cover image rather than retrieving it. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, such as when a full game release is needed (full_upload_game) or when only reading the cover is needed (get_cover_image).

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