comet_upload

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context beyond the input schema, such as the file needing to exist locally and the auto-detection fallback for selectors. However, it does not cover important behavioral aspects like error handling, permissions, or what happens after upload, leaving gaps for a mutation tool.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with three concise sentences that each earn their place: stating the action, providing usage context, and specifying a key constraint. There is zero waste, making it efficient and easy to parse for an AI agent.

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 (mutation with 3 parameters) and no annotations or output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose, usage context, and a key constraint, but lacks details on behavioral outcomes, error cases, or post-upload effects, which are important for a file upload operation without structured support.

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 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, mentioning the local filesystem requirement which relates to filePath but does not provide additional syntax or format details. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 file') and target resource ('to a file input on the current page'), distinguishing it from siblings like comet_screenshot or comet_tabs. It specifies the file types (images, documents, other files) and contexts (forms, posts, upload dialogs), providing comprehensive purpose clarity.

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 this tool ('to attach images, documents, or other files to forms, posts, or upload dialogs'), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among sibling tools. It implies usage for file uploads on web pages, which is helpful but lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons.

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