Upload New File Version (v3)

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false), the description discloses meaningful behavioral traits: the operation publishes immediately, executes a multi-stage pipeline (multipart upload → finalise → wait → publish) that includes a wait, and has failure/recovery semantics via upload_id. This tells the agent the operation is long-lived and has external side effects that aren't retry-safe by re-uploading.

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 sentences with zero filler. The core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by prerequisite sourcing, failure recovery, and the optional changelog feature — each sentence earns its place and adds distinct operational value.

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 complex 15-parameter, multi-stage, failure-prone operation with no output schema, the description covers the essential workflow: purpose, pipeline, prerequisites, retry strategy, and optional feature gating. The main gap is the lack of an explicit return-value contract (the response presumably contains upload_id for the retry path, but this is only implied, not stated), plus a few undocumented boolean params remain unexplained.

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 67% schema coverage, the schema covers most parameters, and the description adds genuine value for the critical ones: mod_file_id's source ('from get_upload_targets'), upload_id's role in the retry path, and mod_uid's purpose ('needed for changelog'). It doesn't fully compensate for the ~5 undocumented parameters (show_requirements_pop_up, allow_mod_manager_download, primary_mod_manager_download, etc.), so it's a 4 rather than a 5.

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 and resource: 'Upload a local archive as a NEW VERSION of an existing mod file and publish it immediately'. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like upload_mod_image (uploading an image, not a file version) and add_changelog (text-only changelog), and even previews the internal pipeline to remove ambiguity.

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 gives clear usage context: it names the prerequisite source ('Get mod_file_id from get_upload_targets'), explains the retry flow when publishing fails ('retry with upload_id to skip re-uploading'), and states the changelog requirement ('needs mod_uid'). However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when NOT to use it versus sibling operations, so it falls short of a 5.

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