perch_upload_src

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does so well: it discloses the injection mechanism (DataTransfer, no OS dialog) and the lifecycle state transition (lands in the editor src store as 'saved', becomes public only when the owner saves). This is meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema, though it omits permission/auth requirements and failure 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?

Two tight sentences that are front-loaded with the core action and follow immediately with the mechanism and post-action state. Zero wasted words.

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 file-upload tool with no output schema and full schema coverage, the description supplies the key non-code context an agent needs (mechanism and when the file becomes public). It is nearly complete, missing only auth/permission expectations and error handling.

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 all three parameters are already documented in the schema, and the description adds no additional parameter semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (upload) and target (a file into the generator's src/ via the editor's file panel), with a clear mechanism. It is distinguishable from siblings like perch_write or perch_src by naming the panel/DataTransfer route, though it does not explicitly contrast with those siblings.

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 context implies when this is useful (placing a file into the generator src store), but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over perch_write, perch_src, or perch_patch, nor any stated prerequisites. Usage is only implied.

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