akb_put_image

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses key traits: images are immutable, the upload creates a hidden attachment rather than a standalone File, the returned URL is stable, and a failed document write requires cleanup via akb_discard_image. It does not mention auth or rate limits, but for this tool the operational consequences are well covered.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and return values, then moves through usage alternatives, behavioral caveats, and failure handling. Every sentence earns its place, and the prose is dense without being bloated.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly explains the return: 'a stable `/api/assets/{uuid}` URL and a ready-to-paste `markdown` image expression.' It also covers prerequisites, alternatives, immutability, browse/search visibility, and cleanup on failure. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters in detail. The description adds useful context around supported file types, the 10 MiB limit, and the return value, but does not materially enrich parameter meaning beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the specific action and resource: 'Upload a local PNG, JPEG, GIF, or WebP ... for inline use in an AKB Markdown document.' It also distinguishes itself from akb_put_file by clarifying this creates 'a hidden document attachment, not a standalone File,' so an agent can tell the two upload tools apart immediately.

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?

Provides explicit routing guidance: use akb_put for a new document, prefer akb_edit for an existing document, and warns that akb_update 'must never receive only an image fragment.' It also names akb_put_file as the alternative when browse/search visibility is needed, and gives the failure fallback of calling akb_discard_image. This is strong when/when-not guidance.

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