upload_model

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action of uploading, without mentioning whether the operation is destructive, requires authentication, has size limits, or what the response looks like. This is insufficient for safe invocation.

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 sentence with 18 words, which is concise. However, it could be more structured by explicitly stating that only one of file_path or file_url should be provided, and by separating the two input modes.

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 has no output schema, no annotations, and three parameters (one undocumented), the description is too minimal. It does not explain return values, error handling, or how to decide between file_path and file_url. It also does not leverage sibling context to differentiate usage.

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?

The schema has 67% coverage; the description adds value by clarifying that file_path and file_url correspond to local and URL-based inputs, and that the accepted formats are STL, 3MF, OBJ. However, the 'name' parameter is not described in the schema nor in the description, leaving its purpose ambiguous.

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 action (upload), target system (Polar Cloud), and supported file formats (STL, 3MF, OBJ). It also mentions the alternative input source (public file_url), distinguishing it from sibling tools like generate_model which create models rather than upload existing ones.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as generate_model or slice_and_queue. It lacks context on prerequisites, whether the model must be preprocessed, or when a URL is preferred over a local file path.

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