sym_upload

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It indicates a write operation (uploading) but does not mention any side effects, permissions required, or what the tool returns (e.g., URLs or IDs). The phrase 'to reuse URLs/vids' hints at a return value but is vague. It also omits any error conditions, file type restrictions, or size limits. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with no output schema.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary action and then adds the distinguishing clause ('without generating anything') and the purpose ('to reuse URLs/vids'). There is zero redundancy or filler, making it highly concise and easy to parse.

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 is simple with one parameter, and the schema fully covers that parameter. The description provides the use case and differentiation. However, it lacks explicit information about the return value or success indication, which is important for an agent to know if the upload succeeded. The hint 'to reuse URLs/vids' implies a return, but it is not stated. Given the simplicity of the tool, a 3 is borderline; it is adequate but could be more 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 the schema already describes the 'files' parameter clearly (absolute path or https URL inside Symphony). The description does not add any additional context about the parameter beyond its purpose. Since the schema is complete, a baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description adds no extra value on this dimension.

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') and the resource ('files into the Symphony library'), and explicitly contrasts with generation tools via 'without generating anything'. It also names the intended purpose ('reuse URLs/vids across tasks'), which distinguishes it from siblings like sym_generate.

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 clear context on when to use the tool: when you want to reuse existing assets across tasks without generating new ones. It implicitly excludes generation use cases by stating 'without generating anything', though it does not explicitly name alternative tools or specify conditions like 'use sym_generate if you need to create content'. This is still sufficient guidance for most agents.

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