http_upload

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, yet it says only 'HTTP POST with curl.' It omits whether the upload is multipart/form-data (implied only by fieldName), how auth failures behave, whether SSL verification can be disabled, or default timeout behavior. The default timeout/insecure semantics exist only in the schema, not the description.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient, though arguably too sparse given the tool's behavioral surface.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should carry the behavioral load, but for a 7-parameter tool with a nested auth object it stays at one sentence. The schema covers parameter meaning, so it is minimally adequate, but the agent gets no guidance on defaults, auth flow, or result shape.

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%, so the schema already documents all seven parameters including the nested auth object, timeout, insecure, and fieldName. The description adds no syntax or format meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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 clear verb (Upload) and resource (a file) plus the transport mechanism (HTTP POST with curl). It is distinguishable from the opposite-direction http_download, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like http_post or curl_custom that could also send a file.

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 no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., auth needed), and no statement about when to prefer this over http_post, http_put, or curl_custom. Usage is only weakly implied by the word 'upload'.

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