browser_file_upload

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation aspect is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond 'upload' — it does not disclose file-chooser interaction, side effects, or that omitting paths cancels the chooser. The cancellation detail is only in the schema, not the description.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded, containing no filler or redundant explanation. Six words convey the core action and cardinality.

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 one-parameter tool with rich schema coverage and annotations covering the safety profile, the description is nearly sufficient. It lacks explicit context about uploading to the current page via a file chooser, but the schema partially compensates. No output schema exists, but the action is simple enough that a return-value explanation is not critical.

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% and the paths parameter is well described: absolute paths, multiple files, and cancellation behavior when omitted. The description itself adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a clear action ('Upload') and a resource ('files'), and notes single or multiple files. It is not a tautology, but it does not differentiate from sibling tools like browser_drop or explain the target of the upload, so it lacks full sibling distinction.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives. There is no mention of file-chooser contexts, when browser_drop would be more appropriate, or any exclusions.

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