upload_file

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose real behavior: a remote share side effect, a forced CloudPaste controlled-proxy download link, a 24-hour default expiry, and the success payload (direct link, file ID, expiry). It omits auth/permission requirements, overwrite or slug-collision behavior, and size limits, but covers more than most mutation tools.

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?

One dense sentence, front-loaded with the action and its main side effect, then the defaults and the return payload. Nothing is wasted, though the single run-on clause makes it slightly harder to scan than a two-sentence split would.

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 six-parameter mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what is uploaded, the share side effect, the default expiry, and the returned fields. Remaining gaps (permissions, failure modes, slug conflicts) are secondary but not negligible.

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 six parameters (path, slug, remark, file_path, expires_in_hours, storage_config_id) are already documented in the schema. The description restates the 24-hour default for expires_in_hours and the local-file nature of file_path but adds no syntax, constraints, or format details beyond that.

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 (uploads a caller-specified local regular file) plus its consequential effect (creates a remote share). That is unambiguous against the read/delete siblings (list_files, get_file, delete_files, test_connection), and an agent can tell what this tool does without opening the schema.

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: the description scopes the input to an 'explicitly specified local regular file', which quietly rules out URLs, directories, or search-based selection. It never states when not to use it, nor names an alternative, and with no sibling upload tool the agent gets no routing help beyond the obvious.

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