Upload files

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds the concrete consequence: existing files with the same name are overwritten. It also discloses the automatic chunked big-file path above 95MB, which is invisible in the schema. Auth requirements and post-upload return behavior are not covered.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and overwrite warning, then the two input modes, then a sibling pointer, then examples. Every sentence carries information the schema does not, and the examples resolve the local_paths-versus-files ambiguity directly.

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 three-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the definition covers mode selection, overwrite semantics, size handling, and the requirement that the destination folder already exist. It does not describe what the tool returns or the per-call item limits, leaving a small gap given there is no output schema to fall back on.

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 100%, so the baseline would be 3, but the description adds real meaning: local_paths are files on this machine, base64 'files' is an alternative or complement (the and/or relationship), and the examples show concrete folder/name shapes. It does not restate per-item constraints, which the schema already handles well.

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 (upload files of any type into a Nekoweb site folder) and immediately names the sibling it is not for plain-text content. An agent can distinguish it from nekoweb_write_file without opening either 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?

Explicitly routes plain-text content to nekoweb_write_file and gives two worked examples mapping natural-language requests onto the two input modes. It does not address when to prefer nekoweb_import_zip or nekoweb_create for bulk/creation scenarios, which is the one remaining routing gap among siblings.

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