upload_file_by_uid

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

The annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, and the description merely restates the mutating nature of the action ('Upload file'). Beyond this, it discloses no additional behavioral traits such as whether the file must exist, whether change events are triggered, or what happens on failure. It adds no value beyond the annotation.

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 of seven words, front-loaded with the verb and object. It contains no filler or redundant information, earning every word.

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 simple two-parameter interface, the absence of an output schema, and the existing parameter descriptions, the terse description is largely sufficient. However, it lacks any mention of potential error conditions or prerequisites (e.g., file existence), which a safety-conscious agent might expect. Still, for a straightforward upload action, it is almost complete.

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 coverage is 100% with both uid and filePath described (one as 'File input UID from snapshot', the other as 'Local file path'). The description itself does not add any semantic detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('Upload') and resource ('file input by UID'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like fill_by_uid or click_by_uid. It conveys exactly what the tool does without ambiguity.

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 is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention situations where it should be preferred over fill_by_uid or fill_form_by_uid, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. The only implicit hint is the term 'file input' in the schema, but the description itself offers no usage direction.

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