Upload File

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

The description discloses key behavioral traits beyond annotations: protocol fallback (SFTP -> FTP), connectivity requirements, and dry-run behavior. Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description's overwriting statement aligns. The added details about protocol preferences and dry-run provide valuable transparency.

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 three sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core action, the second adds protocol and requirement details, and the third notes dry-run behavior. Every sentence serves a purpose, and the description is front-loaded.

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 is straightforward (upload a file) and there is no output schema, the description covers access requirements, protocol preferences, and overwrite behavior. It is sufficient for an agent to correctly invoke the tool. The existence of sibling tools like delete_file and get_file_content provides context that this is the write/update operation.

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 each parameter already has a description in the schema. The tool description does not add significant new meaning beyond stating that files are overwritten, which is related to the 'name' parameter. With high schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Upload a text file to a router, overwriting any existing file of the same name.' It specifies the verb 'upload' and the resource 'text file to a router', distinguishing it from siblings like list_files, get_file_content, and delete_file which handle file listing, retrieval, and deletion respectively.

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 context on when to use: it mentions protocol preferences (SFTP fallback to FTP), access requirements (SSH or FTP access), and dry-run behavior. Although it doesn't explicitly list alternatives among siblings, the tool's purpose is clear enough so that an agent can infer when to use it over other file-related tools.

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