Upload File

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

The description claims the tool overwrites existing files, which is a destructive side effect, but the annotations set destructiveHint=false. This is a direct contradiction. Per scoring rules, a description contradicting annotations receives a score of 1.

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 concise sentences: first for the main action, second for prerequisites, third for dry-run behavior. It is front-loaded with the most important information and contains no unnecessary words.

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?

There is no output schema and the description does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., success status, file metadata, or error messages). Given the tool's complexity and the need for the agent to interpret results, this is a significant gap.

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 each parameter. The description adds value by explaining the overwrite behavior for the name parameter and clarifying the dry-run parameter's purpose. This goes beyond the schema, justifying a score above baseline 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 (upload), resource (text file to router via FTP), and key behavior (overwriting). It distinguishes itself from the many list_* and manage_* siblings by describing a distinct file transfer action.

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 explicitly states a prerequisite: FTP permission on the router user, and provides a reference to configuration. It also clarifies the dry-run use case. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use this tool or mention alternative tools, though none are apparent from siblings.

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