seafile_upload_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions that the tool uploads files and returns an 'OperationResult', which indicates success or failure, adding some behavioral context. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or side effects, leaving gaps 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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage guidelines and parameter details. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 that there is an output schema (implied by 'Returns: OperationResult'), the description does not need to detail return values. It covers purpose, usage, and parameters adequately. However, as a mutation tool with no annotations, it could benefit from more behavioral details like authentication requirements or potential impacts.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description lists the parameters and adds minimal context (e.g., 'base64 encoded file content'), but does not provide significant additional meaning beyond what the schema offers. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 specific action ('Upload a binary file to Seafile') and distinguishes it from sibling tools by explicitly mentioning 'seafile_write_file' as the alternative for text files. It identifies the resource (binary file) and the target system (Seafile), providing a precise purpose.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('for uploading binary files') and when not to ('For text files, prefer seafile_write_file instead'), directly naming the alternative sibling tool. This gives clear context for selection among available options.

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