anon_post_files

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

Annotations already declare the write/mutating safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false). The description usefully adds context beyond them: the required permission scope, the 20MB size ceiling, and the fact that the project is derived from the API key so no projectId is passed. It stops short of describing duplicate-on-reupload behavior or failure responses.

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?

Four compact statements, purpose front-loaded, followed by permission, constraint, and endpoint semantics. There is no filler or repetition, and every clause carries operational 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 one-parameter upload tool with no output schema, the definition covers the essentials: permission requirement, size limit, single-file nature, and project scoping. Missing only secondary details like return value shape or behavior on duplicate filenames.

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?

Although reported schema coverage is 0% at the top level, the nested file object actually documents filename, base64 (standard Base64, no data: prefix, ≤20 MiB decoded) and mimeType. The description reinforces this by clarifying it is a single-file payload and that no projectId is needed despite the {id} in the endpoint, adding meaning the schema alone does not convey.

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 + resource (上传项目文件 / upload project files) and even names the endpoint POST /api/projects/{id}/files, so an agent knows exactly what operation this is. It does not, however, differentiate itself from similar write siblings such as anon_post_materials or anon_post_materials_resource_id_versions, leaving ambiguity about files-vs-materials.

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?

It gives real preconditions (requires file:upload permission) and constraints (single file, ≤20MB), which implicitly tells the agent when the tool is callable. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or routing versus sibling upload tools, so usage is only implied.

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