remarkable_upload

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

The description reveals extensive behavioral traits beyond the readOnlyHint=false annotation: requires write mode, transport-specific behaviors (USB web ignores parent_folder, SSH supports defer_restart), and the consequences of restarts (destabilisation, refresh_pending). This fully informs the agent of side effects and constraints.

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 well-structured with XML tags (usecase, instructions, parameters, examples), front-loading the core purpose. Every sentence adds value, covering transport modes, batch patterns, and edge cases without redundancy. It is efficient and highly readable.

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 complexity (4 parameters, 3 transports, batch behavior) and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It covers all parameters, transport-specific nuances, batch usage, and response hints, leaving no gaps for an agent to interpret.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates fully by explaining each parameter: file_path (absolute path), parent_folder (default '/', transport-honored), document_name (default filename without extension), and defer_restart (SSH-only, batch usage, response flag). It adds critical meaning absent from 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 explicitly states 'Upload a PDF or EPUB file to the reMarkable tablet', using a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like remarkable_image (for images) and remarkable_markdown_to_pdf (conversion) by specifying supported formats and transport modes.

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 the tool (uploading local files) and includes instructions for different transports and batch usage. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives like remarkable_image for image uploads, leaving a minor gap in when-not-to-use guidance.

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