upload_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It mentions returning a public URL and lists supported file types, but omits important details like file size limits, overwrite behavior, authentication requirements, or error handling.

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 well-structured with bullet points and front-loaded content. It is a bit verbose but not overly long; every sentence adds value, though some redundancy (e.g., listing file types in both sentences and bullet) could be trimmed.

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 no output schema, the description explains the return value and supported file types. However, it lacks details on file size limits, error handling for unsupported types, and whether the tool overwrites existing files. While adequate for basic use, it leaves gaps.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds an example for file_path and explains tags as labels, but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema descriptions.

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', the resource 'file', and the destination 'BrandKity workspace storage (R2)'. It also provides common use cases and differentiates from siblings by listing specific file types and referencing specialized tools like add_typography and update_kit for logo uploads.

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 gives explicit use cases (fonts, logos, cover images, general assets) and links to other tools. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid using this tool in favor of specialized upload tools (e.g., upload_kit_logo), leaving some ambiguity.

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