Store an app file

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond them: overwriting bumps the path's version, files are capped at a few MiB, and files persist across chats. It stops short of describing error behavior on size violations or what happens on version conflicts.

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?

Four short sentences, zero filler, with the core verb/resource and overwrite semantics front-loaded before secondary details like encoding, size cap, and persistence.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the description covers the mutation semantics, size limit, and persistence that an agent needs. It could go one step further on conflict handling for expected_version, but nothing essential is missing.

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 schema already documents all six parameters, and the baseline is 3. The description restates data_base64's encoding and gestures at versioning via 'bumps its version', but does not explain expected_version's optimistic-concurrency semantics or command_id's idempotency role beyond what the schema says.

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 verb and resource ('Store a file for an app') plus the create-or-overwrite scope in parentheses. An agent can immediately distinguish it from siblings like file_read, file_list, and file_delete.

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 parenthetical 'create or overwrite by path' and the note that files 'persist and are the app's own, reusable across chats' imply when this tool is appropriate. However, no alternative is named (e.g. when to prefer file_delete or a data_* tool) and there is no explicit when-not guidance.

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