request_upload

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It notes file bytes are not sent through MCP or terminal history, which is valuable, but omits critical details like the confirmation process, timeout behavior, error handling, and post-confirmation steps.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action. Every word serves a purpose, efficiently communicating the tool's function and a key security caveat.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is too brief. It lacks information about the upload workflow, user confirmation steps, error states, and relationship to siblings like cancel_upload and upload_status, leaving the agent underinformed.

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 67%, covering basic parameter roles. The description adds useful context that profile_name supports ProxyJump for uploads, but does not explain enum options (method, if_exists) or other parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 creates a local-file upload request, specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like upload_status and cancel_upload by focusing on initiation, but could be more explicit about the confirmation step.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Siblings like upload_status and cancel_upload imply a multi-step process, but the description does not advise when to choose this tool over others or mention prerequisites.

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