profilarr_upload_backup

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the upload action, the multipart form data format, and the return value. However, it does not mention potential side effects like overwriting existing backups, authentication requirements, or error handling, which could be relevant for a mutating operation.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action and return value. No filler or redundant information.

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?

For a simple one-parameter upload tool with an output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does and what it returns. It lacks details like size limits or edge cases, but these are not essential for basic invocation and selection.

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 zero parameter descriptions, but the single 'filepath' parameter is self-explanatory given the tool name and the description's reference to a 'local .tar.gz backup'. The description effectively implies that filepath is the path to the local file, compensating for the schema gap.

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 specific action (upload a local .tar.gz backup to the server as multipart form data) and the return value (stored filename/size). This distinguishes it from siblings like download_backup and delete_backup by focusing on the upload direction.

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 implies usage when a local backup file needs to be stored on the server, but does not explicitly mention when to use it versus alternatives like create_backup or download_backup. No exclusions or alternative references are provided.

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