upload_local_file_background

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses crucial behaviors: the upload starts and returns immediately with a job_id, it runs in the background, and it avoids timeout issues. This goes beyond the schema's parameter list. However, it does not mention failure scenarios (e.g., what happens if the local file is missing) or any job lifecycle limits, so it is not exhaustive, but it is adequate for an agent to anticipate the async flow.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, a statement of the immediate return behavior, a usage note, and a formatted arg list. Every line contributes value, and the key information is front-loaded. There is no fluff or redundancy.

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 the tool's async nature, the description provides the essential operational loop: start upload, get a job_id, and poll via get_upload_status. It also explains the parameters and the time-out rationale. Although there is no output schema, the description explicitly states the return value (job_id), making the contract clear. It is complete enough for an agent to use correctly without further research.

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 0%, yet the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter in the Args list: local_path is an absolute file path, disk_path includes a concrete example, and overwrite tells the agent what the boolean controls. This is far more informative than the schema's bare type/title entries, giving the agent exact semantic meaning and usage intent.

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 uses a specific verb ('Start uploading') and identifies the resource ('a large local file to Yandex Disk') plus the key differentiator ('in the background'). It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling 'upload_local_file' by noting the immediate return of a job_id and points to a complementary tool (get_upload_status). This leaves no ambiguity about the tool's purpose.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool ('Suitable for files of any size — no timeout issues') and implies it is the background alternative to a synchronous upload. It also tells the agent to follow up with get_upload_status. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name the synchronous sibling as an alternative, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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