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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the input format (data URI) and the output (server-side path), which is the core behavioral contract. It does not mention errors or limits, but the main behavior is clearly conveyed.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and contains no fluff. Every sentence adds value: purpose, input format, and output usage.

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 simple upload tool with two parameters and an output schema, this description covers purpose, input format, and output usage. It also ties into sibling tools. Missing error handling or limits, but not critical given the tool's simplicity.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It defines the exact format for file_data (data URI), which is critical. Filename is not explained, but the name is self-explanatory and optional.

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's function: 'Upload a file to the Compoid MCP server.' It also explains the return value (server-side path) and how it relates to sibling tools, making it distinct from other operations.

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 explicitly explains when to use this tool: to obtain a file_upload path for Compoid_create_record or Compoid_update_record. This provides direct integration guidance and differentiates it from download_files and other siblings.

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