Upload a local file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states only that a file is uploaded, but does not mention overwrite behavior, file size limits, authentication requirements, or whether an existing target file is replaced. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 a single sentence that is direct and front-loaded with the action. It wastes no words and is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 annotations, no output schema, and zero parameter descriptions, the description is too sparse to provide complete context. It does not explain return values, required project state, or how parameters interrelate, leaving important operational details undocumented.

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 the description does not explain any of the three parameters (localPath, filePath, projectId). Although the parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, the description adds no value beyond the minimal schema, leaving the agent without guidance on how to populate these fields.

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's action: 'Upload a local file, such as a figure, into the project.' It uses a specific verb ('upload') and identifies the resource being acted on (local file) and the destination (project). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like write_file or download_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 phrase 'such as a figure' implies a use case (binary or local content), but the description provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The usage context is only weakly implied.

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