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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and delivers thoroughly: admin-token requirement, chunked upload protocol (chunk_index=0 first, is_last=true last), return behavior (URL returned on final chunk), confinement to a hardcoded path, and strict sanitization with no path escape possible. This is substantially richer than a typical summary.

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?

Each sentence earns its place: access restriction first, then the action, filename behavior, chunking protocol, and safety boundary. The most critical constraint is front-loaded, and there is no filler or redundant restatement of the schema.

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 5-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers access control, target path, chunking flow, return value, and security guarantees. The main gap is the absence of failure/retry semantics for multi-chunk uploads (e.g., what happens if a chunk fails mid-sequence), but overall it is well above minimal viability.

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, but the description adds orchestration semantics beyond the per-field schema: it explains how chunk_index and is_last interact within the upload sequence, and that the final chunk triggers the client URL return. This cross-parameter protocol knowledge is genuinely additive, not just a restatement.

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 a specific action ('Dépose un zip de master client'), resource, and destination ('dans ~/www/masters/ sur le serveur OVH'). The verb is concrete and the resource is well-defined. It clearly stands apart from the sibling tools, which are all read/fetch/search operations, making it the only write/upload tool.

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 opens with a hard usage restriction: 'RÉSERVÉ AU STUDIO (token d'administration requis)', giving clear conditions under which the tool may be called. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions relative to siblings, but the sibling context (all read-only information tools) makes the differentiation evident and the access requirement is unambiguous.

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