Upload local file or folder

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds useful specifics: existing files with the same path are replaced, and hidden files/folders are skipped. It does not discuss permissions or return behavior, but it goes beyond the annotations where it matters most for a destructive upload.

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 front-loaded with the core action, then states replacement and hidden-file behavior, followed by a compact example. Every sentence contributes relevant information without unnecessary verbosity.

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 rich annotations, full parameter schema coverage, and no output schema, the description provides enough behavioral context to invoke the tool correctly. It could be slightly more complete by explaining what happens on success or failure, but the essential overwrite/skip semantics are covered.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description still adds semantic value through the example mapping local_path="/home/me/figures" to remote_path="figures", clarifying directory-prefix usage beyond the schema text.

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 states a specific verb and resource: uploading a local file or whole folder into a project. It is clear and concrete, including examples of file types, but it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings such as typst_write_file or typst_edit_file.

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?

Usage is implied by the local-file/local-folder framing, and replacement/skip behavior is noted, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of typst_write_file or other file tools. The agent must infer the alternative from the tool name and description.

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