Upload To My Files

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent and open-world. The description adds genuinely new context (private-by-default visibility) and names the return value. However, the consequences of idempotentHint=false are not addressed — an agent cannot tell whether re-uploading the same filename overwrites or creates a duplicate, and no storage-quota/failure behavior is mentioned.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then visibility, then return value. No filler, no repetition of the title.

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 2-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers action, visibility, and return value, which is nearly everything an agent needs. Missing only edge-case behavior (duplicate names, quota, size limits).

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 description coverage is 100%, and both params (file_path, parent_folder_path) carry their own examples and defaults (omit for top level). The description adds nothing about the parameters, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: upload a local file into *personal* Canvas storage, with the visibility scope made explicit. An agent can distinguish it from course-file tools via 'your personal Canvas storage', though no sibling (e.g. upload_submission_file, upload_comment_attachment) is named.

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?

Usage is only implied by the phrase 'until you share or submit it', which hints this is a staging step before sharing/submitting, but it never explicitly says when to use this versus upload_submission_file or upload_comment_attachment. No prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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