disk_upload

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without any detail on side effects, conflict handling, permissions, or return values. The generate_unique_name parameter hints at conflict behavior, but the description itself adds no behavioral context.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and free of unnecessary words. It is concise and well-structured.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides only the core action. It omits crucial context such as return value, prerequisite conditions, or behavior when conflicting parameters are provided. The schema covers parameter details but does not compensate for missing overall behavioral context.

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 each parameter already has a detailed description. The tool description's mention of 'local path or base64' is redundant with the schema's mutual exclusivity note. Thus, the description adds no meaningful parameter semantics beyond the schema, earning the baseline score of 3.

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 verb 'Загрузить' (upload), the resource 'Bitrix Drive', and the scope (from local path or base64 content). This distinguishes it from sibling upload tools like im_send_file or task_attach_file, which target different resources.

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 clearly implies the tool is for uploading files to Bitrix Drive from either a local path or base64 content. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is unambiguous. A 5 would require explicit when/when-not guidance, which is absent.

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