Upload a file

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

Annotations indicate this is a mutating operation (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), but the description adds no behavioral context beyond 'uploads a file to the remote host.' It does not disclose whether existing files are overwritten, how content is encoded, whether a session is required, or what side effects occur. With only annotations carrying the burdenuation, this is insufficient for an upload operation.

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 two sentences are tiny but redundant: 'Upload a file' restates the title, and 'Uploads a file to the remote host' adds only a minimal detail. The first sentence earns no place, and the entire description could be condensed into one meaningful sentence without loss.

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 tool with four undocumented parameters, no output schema, and a large sibling set of file operations, this description is far too sparse. Nothing explains how to construct a valid call, what the values represent, or how this upload differs from the chunked/multipart/write alternatives. A newer agent would be unable to use this tool correctly.

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 coverage is 0% and the description explains none of the four parameters (path, content, fileName, sessionId). The agent cannot infer what these strings mean, how they relate, or what format content should be in. The description adds no meaning beyond the bare property names.

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 the verb 'upload' and the resource 'file', but it is nearly identical to the title and does not distinguish itself from siblings like termix_files_upload_one_raw_file_chunk, termix_files_stream_upload_file_via_multipart_form, or termix_files_write_file. It tells the agent what it does but not what makes it unique.

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 any of the many file-related siblings. No mention of alternatives, prerequisites, or typical scenarios. An agent receives zero help in selecting this tool over the dozens of other upload/write/file tools.

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