dav_put

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behaviors. It clearly states the tool creates or overwrites files and that content_b64 must be base64-encoded. This covers key mutation traits, though it omits permissions, error handling, or size limits.

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 sentences, very concise, and front-loads the purpose. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary words.

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?

The description covers purpose and core behaviors, but missing details on authentication parameters (username, password) and path reduce completeness. An output schema exists, so return values are handled, but auth guidance is lacking for a 4-param tool with no annotations.

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 input schema has 4 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description only adds meaning for content_b64 (base64 required) but leaves username, password, and path unexplained, failing to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 'Upload a file', which is a specific verb and resource. It also explains the behavior (creates/overwrites) and the content format (base64), distinguishing it from sibling DAV operations like dav_delete, dav_get, etc.

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 for uploading files but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., dav_get for download, dav_delete for removal). No when-not-to-use or prerequisite guidance is provided.

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