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

The description discloses that this tool reads from the client's disk, which is a key behavioral trait not fully captured by annotations. It also notes the limitation that Remote/OAuth MCP cannot read the client's disk. However, it doesn't detail side effects or error conditions, but the annotations already indicate non-read-only and non-destructive.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core action, then provides usage guidance and alternatives. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is logical: action, use case, workflow, and limitation.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, clear output schema), the description covers all necessary context: what it does, when to use it, what to do with the result, and the limitation of remote MCP. The output schema exists, so return values are already documented.

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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'path' with a clear description. The tool description adds context about the path being on the local machine, which reinforces the schema. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline is 3, and the added context about local path usage justifies a 4.

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: read a local path, upload it to NexDoc, and return a file_id. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like asset_files and request_file_upload, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 states when to use this tool (stdio MCP, large photos) and when not to (Remote/OAuth MCP), and names the alternative (request_file_upload and PUT). It also provides a clear workflow: pass file_ids to create_design or update_design.

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