dataset_upload_files

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only restates the tool's primary action ('upload individual files') and gives no details on upload behavior, such as whether files are appended or overwritten, size limits, async processing, or required permissions. This is a significant transparency gap for a mutation tool.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence of 7 words with zero filler. Every word is meaningful and the structure directly states the action and object.

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 has no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves out crucial context: whether the operation is synchronous or asynchronous, what is returned (e.g., job ID), any limits on file size/count, and error behavior. This is a bare minimum description for a straightforward upload tool but is insufficient for an agent to predict side effects.

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 input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions ('Array of file paths to upload' and 'Type of data being uploaded'), so the description adds no additional parameter meaning. Per the rubric, baseline 3 is appropriate when schema coverage is high.

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 action (Upload) and the resource (individual files to a dataset). The word 'individual' hints at a distinction from the sibling tool 'dataset_upload_folder', but it does not explicitly name or elaborate on that distinction, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling 'dataset_upload_folder' present, the description should explicitly state that this is for individual files rather than folders, but it simply says 'individual files' without explaining when it is appropriate.

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