Upload Async

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It adds two useful behaviors: session creation is conditional on the transfer actually starting, and overwrite confirmation logic matches the upload tool. However, it does not disclose other behaviors like non-blocking semantics, result retrieval, or potential error conditions, leaving gaps.

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 two concise sentences with no fluff. The key facts (async, conditional session creation, overwrite confirmation parity) are front-loaded and each sentence adds meaningful information. It is well-structured and easily scannable.

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?

This is an async tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, so the description needs to explain session lifecycle, result handling, and parameter specifics. It only covers conditional session creation and overwrite confirmation, leaving significant gaps about how to use the tool effectively (e.g., meaning of 'session,' how to retrieve results).

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only hints at the confirm_code parameter via 'overwrite confirmation logic' without explaining its format or when it is needed. The required parameters machine, localPath, and remotePath are not described at all, leaving the agent to infer their meaning from names and siblings.

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 identifies this as an async upload operation, distinguishing it from the sibling 'upload' tool. The verb 'upload' plus the 'asynchronous' qualifier conveys the core purpose, and the schema confirms localPath/remotePath/machine semantics. It lacks a bit of explicit scope (e.g., 'file transfer from local to remote'), but the meaning is sufficient.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to choose async vs. sync upload. The description references the same overwrite confirmation logic as upload and mentions session creation, but does not state 'use this when you want a non-blocking transfer' or 'use upload for synchronous operation.' The necessity of the async variant is only implied by the tool name.

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