upload_to_romeo

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description adds nothing about overwriting existing remote files, whether the transfer is resumable, size limits, or authentication requirements. For a mutation/transfer tool it does not enrich the behavioral picture 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?

A single short sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and destination, with no filler. It is appropriately sized, though its brevity partly reflects the missing detail noted elsewhere.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but for a transfer tool with three undocumented parameters and no annotation coverage of overwrite/auth behavior, the description is too thin to call correctly without external assumptions.

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 0% and there are three parameters, yet the description mentions none of them. It does not clarify the meaning of local_path, remote_path, or the verify flag (default true), leaving the agent to guess parameter semantics entirely.

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 states a specific verb (envoie/upload) and resource (fichier ou repertoire local) with a clear destination (ROMEO). It implicitly distinguishes itself from download_from_romeo by naming direction, though it doesn't call out the sibling explicitly.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as write_remote_file or download_from_romeo, nor any prerequisites (credentials, quota, target filesystem). The agent must infer usage purely from the verb.

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