upload_to_storage

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

Without annotations, the description partially discloses behavior by noting the HTTP API requirement, but it fails to mention side effects, prerequisites, or the actual outcome of calling the tool. The agent is left uncertain about what happens after invocation.

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 fairly concise, with a single sentence plus a list. It is front-loaded with the purpose. However, the list format is standard and could be integrated more naturally.

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?

Given the tool has 5 parameters and an output schema, the description lacks information about return values, error conditions, and prerequisites. The note about the HTTP API is critical but incomplete, and no context is provided about storage types or node requirements.

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 description adds meaning beyond the empty schema by naming each parameter and specifying content type values ('iso', 'vztmpl', 'snippets', 'import'). However, it does not explain 'tmpfilename' or provide constraints like required formats, leaving some parameters underspecified.

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 'Upload a file (ISO, template, etc.) to storage', which conveys the primary action and resource type. However, the note about the HTTP API introduces ambiguity about the tool's actual role in the upload process, slightly reducing clarity.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'download_url_to_storage' or 'list_storage_content'. The only hint is the note about HTTP API, but it does not help an agent decide between tools.

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