overleaf_push_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 well: it discloses side effects (overwrite, creating missing folders), explains the realtime channel join, and notes performance trade-offs. It omits auth requirements or error behavior, but the provided details are valuable and not contradicting any structured data.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and no wasted words. Every clause adds functional or behavioral context. Ideally concise.

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?

Given an output schema exists, return values need no explanation. The tool's complexity—single file upload with folder creation and performance notes—is well covered. Some edge cases (e.g., invalid paths, overwrite confirmation) are not mentioned, but they are not critical for core selection and invocation.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal parameter-specific detail beyond the schema—it mentions folder creation for remote_path but does not explain parameters in depth. The schema already documents default and example, so the description neither elevates nor detracts.

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 function with a specific verb ('Upload or overwrite') and resource ('a single file in an Overleaf project'). It also distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing 'single file', which contrasts with overleaf_push_dir. The mention of creating missing folders adds scope specificity.

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 description implies usage for single-file uploads, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like overleaf_push_dir. The performance comparison to overleaf_pull is a behavioral note rather than clear usage guidance. No exclusions or 'when not to use' are provided.

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