upload_file

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

No annotations exist, so the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It mentions uploading to R2 and returning a public URL, but lacks details on overwrite behavior, file size limits, or authentication requirements. It does list supported file types. Score 3 for adequate but incomplete disclosure.

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?

Description is concise with a clear front-loaded statement, followed by a bullet list of common use cases. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. Score 5 for efficient structure.

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?

For a simple file upload tool, the description covers inputs, return value, supported file types, and typical usage. It lacks mention of file size limits or duplicate handling, but these are minor. Output schema is not needed. Score 4 for being mostly 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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by providing an example absolute path and clarifying tags as comma-separated with example. It also shows how parameters link to use cases. Score 4 for meaningful addition beyond schema.

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 tool uploads files to workspace storage and returns a public URL, with specific verb ('Upload'), resource ('file to BrandKity workspace storage'), and output. It distinguishes from sibling tools like upload_cover_image and upload_kit_logo by listing common use cases. Score 5 for specificity and differentiation.

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 explicit when-to-use examples (fonts, logos) and links to sibling tools (add_typography, update_kit). It implies alternatives exist for specific-brand uploads but does not explicitly say when not to use this tool. Score 4 for clear context and alternatives.

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