upload_directory

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It reveals the compress/transfer/extract pipeline and suggests async for large directories, but lacks details on overwrite behavior, error handling, or return values. Some transparency is provided, but important behavioral traits remain undisclosed.

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 description is a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core action and key behavioral notes. No wasted words; the parenthetical clarifies the process and usage hint.

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 5-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides the core purpose and an async hint, but does not mention how to monitor async transfers (e.g., using sibling transfer_status) or what the tool returns. It is adequate but leaves gaps in operational context.

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% with detailed parameter descriptions (e.g., MD5 dedup for skip_same). The description adds a hint about async for large dirs but does not add meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uploads a local directory to a remote server, distinguishing it from sibling tools like upload_file. It also adds specific details (auto compress, transfer, extract) that make the tool's purpose precise.

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 gives clear usage context by mentioning 'Use async for large dirs', which guides when to enable a parameter. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the resource type (directory vs file) and name make the intended use clear.

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