upload_file

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states 'upload' implying mutation, but fails to mention side effects (overwrite behavior), authentication needs, success/failure indicators, or rate limits. The description is too terse to provide meaningful transparency.

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 extremely concise at 4 words, which is efficient but at the cost of omitting critical information. It passes for brevity but lacks any structural front-loading of important details.

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?

The tool has a simple parameter set and no output schema, yet the description does not explain what the tool returns, how to verify success, or handle errors. An agent would be left guessing about the outcome of the upload operation.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters ('File path or base64 encoded content' and 'Destination folder'). The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 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 'Upload file to Mautic' clearly states the action and target resource. It is a specific verb-resource pair. With no other upload tools among siblings, it sufficiently distinguishes itself.

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 usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool, what prerequisites exist, or how it differs from other tools (e.g., create_asset). There is no mention of file types, size limits, or scenario context.

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