Create a product image upload URL

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

Annotations only state readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description adds that the tool returns a signed URL and does not upload directly. It mentions the HTTP method (multipart/form-data POST) and the need to call attach-image afterward. However, it doesn't cover expiration of the URL, required permissions, or whether the product must already exist. It provides some extra context but lacks depth that would help an agent understand side effects or constraints.

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 concise sentences: the first states the core action (returns signed URL with method), the second gives the essential next step. No filler, and key information is front-loaded. This is efficient and well-structured.

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?

Without an output schema, the description must explain what the tool returns. It does mention the signed URL and the returned object_name, implying a structured response. It also explains the follow-up action. However, it doesn't specify response fields (e.g., URL, object_name structure) or constraints like expiration. For a simple tool, this is nearly complete, but a bit more detail on the response shape would make it fully self-sufficient.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage for both store_id and product_id, so the schema already explains their purpose. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific detail beyond what the schema provides—it only ties the overall flow to the parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the load and no additional semantics 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 the tool returns a signed URL for uploading a product image via multipart/form-data POST, and gives a specific next step (calling the attach-image endpoint). It distinguishes itself from the sibling ecommerce_uploadAndAttachAProductImageV1 by implying this only generates the URL, not performing the upload/attach. The verb 'returns' and the resource 'signed URL' are precise.

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 explains a workflow (generate URL, then call attach) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when to use this vs. the combined upload-and-attach sibling. The context is clear (for two-step uploading) but no explicit 'when not to use' or naming of alternatives is given, leaving the agent to infer that the sibling might be a one-step option.

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