file_upload

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

Annotations already declare write (readOnlyHint=false), open-world, non-idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds two useful behavioral traits beyond that: the transport is resumable, and app packages remain private until inspect/commit. It does not cover failure modes, auth, or resumption details.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the key constraint. No redundant or filler content.

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?

A mutation tool with 4 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema needs a fuller description to be safely invoked. The current text leaves most parameters and behavioral details (resumption, error handling, workspace scoping) 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It vaguely implies that 'path' is a local file and 'purpose' relates to app packages, but operationId and workspaceId are entirely undocumented. Most of the parameter semantics are left to the schema's enum and types alone.

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?

States a specific verb (upload) and resource (local regular file) and names the transport mechanism. It distinguishes itself from file_download by implication and mentions inspect/commit for app packages, but does not explicitly contrast with any sibling tool.

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?

Gives a constraint for app packages (.vrchapp, private until inspect/commit) which implies a workflow, but does not state when to use this tool vs alternatives like file_download or apps_import_inspect. Usage is only partially implied.

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