File Upload

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the key behavioral trait that this is a write operation and explains the remote-name conflict policy (skip/replace/rename), which is genuinely useful. However, it omits permission/auth requirements, whether missing directories are created, failure modes, and concurrency behavior.

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?

Three tight sentences, purpose front-loaded first, then the conflict policy, then the pre-check hint. No filler or repetition.

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 7-param write tool with an output schema present, the description covers purpose, the ambiguous enum parameter, and a related pre-check tool, so return values need not be explained. Minor gaps around auth/permissions keep it from a 5.

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 high (86%), so the schema already documents most params, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds real value beyond the schema by explaining the semantic meaning of each overwrite enum value (skip=跳过, replace=覆盖, rename=保留旧文件并改名), which the schema leaves as a bare enum.

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 (上传/upload) and resource (本地文件到 NAS 目录) and explicitly says it is a write operation (写操作). This distinguishes it from siblings like file_download_url and file_check_upload without opening any 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?

It names an alternative tool and the condition for using it: run file_check_upload to pre-check target state before uploading. That is concrete routing guidance. It lacks explicit when-not guidance, but context is clear.

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