post_routers_local_content

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

Annotations indicate non-read-only and non-destructive. The description adds key behavioral context: files are stored in a public bucket for configured routers to download, and the upload requires specific permissions. This complements annotations without contradiction.

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?

Description is well-structured with purpose, permission, constraints, and a link. It's relatively concise, though the HTML breaks slightly lengthen it. Front-loads the key action.

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 tool has a single parameter and no output schema. The description explains what happens (stored in public bucket) but does not describe the response format, whether the upload automatically activates the file, or if a separate config step is needed. A link to docs partially compensates.

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 describes parameter 'File' with minimal description. The tool description adds critical details: file must be HTML, under 4MB, filename under 100 chars, and attached as multipart/form-data, greatly enhancing parameter understanding.

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 router local content file' and explains its specific purpose for configuring as HTTPS server local content. It distinguishes from siblings like get_routers_local_content and other post_routers_* tools by the unique action and resource.

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?

Provides explicit permission requirements and constraints (file type, size, name length, multipart/form-data). Includes a link to an example script. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or alternatives.

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