Bulk Upload Assets

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses critical behavior: atomicity and rollback on failure. This is valuable for an agent. However, it could be improved by mentioning any size limits, permissions required, or side effects.

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 extremely concise: two sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource. Every sentence adds value (purpose and atomic behavior). No superfluous text.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the main behavioral aspect (rollback). However, it lacks details on file size limits, supported file types, and return value structure. Minor gaps prevent a perfect score.

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% for the single parameter 'file_paths' which is already described as 'Absolute file paths to upload'. The description does not add parameter-specific detail beyond the schema, but the atomicity context is relevant. Baseline 3 is appropriate due to high schema coverage.

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 purpose: 'Upload multiple local files as assets atomically.' It specifies the verb (upload), the resource (multiple local files as assets), and includes key behavior (atomicity and rollback). This distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'upload_asset' which handles single files.

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 batch uploads with atomicity, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It could provide guidance on when not to use (e.g., for single file uploads) or mention prerequisites like file size limits.

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