Upload File

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds behavioral context by stating that files become 'run attachments and potential social assets' and are 'treated as reference material behind the prompt-injection boundary', offering insight into security and asset implications beyond the annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence adds value. No fluff or redundant information.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and moderate complexity. The description covers purpose and some behavioral context but fails to explain return values or clarify parameter combinations (e.g., file_path vs content_base64). Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 all parameters are documented. The description does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema provides, though it does mention file types (image, video, document) which aligns with mime_type inference. Baseline 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 clearly states the tool uploads local image, video, or document files to a Glitch title or run. It specifies the verb 'upload', the resource 'local file', and the destination 'Glitch title or run', distinguishing it from sibling tools like glitch_start_agent_run or glitch_select_title.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as glitch_create_upload_url. It implies usage for uploading files as run attachments, but lacks when-not-to-use or alternative comparisons, leaving the agent without clear selection criteria.

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