upload_file

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden and does meaningful work: it discloses that the capability is disabled by default, constrains paths to server-allowed folders, and warns about prompt-injection-driven uploads. It omits failure behavior for out-of-scope paths and any rate 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?

Three tight clauses, the action first and the safety constraint last, with no filler. The escaped-backtick formatting adds minor noise but nothing extraneous in 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the description covers the two things an agent most needs before calling: the configuration prerequisite and the path restriction. A note on what happens when a path is rejected would close the remaining gap for a mutation 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does explain ``index`` (the file input or upload button being targeted) and constrains ``paths`` (must be inside an allowed folder), but ``include_snapshot`` is never mentioned, leaving one of three parameters with no semantics anywhere.

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 and resource ('Upload local files') plus the mechanism ('through the file input or upload button at ``index``'), which clearly separates it from text-entry siblings like type_text or fill_secret. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling for comparison, so it stops short of 5.

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 concrete prerequisite (uploads only work when a directory is configured via ``wraith mcp --upload-dir`` or ``WRAITH_UPLOAD_DIRS``) and an explicit prohibition ('Never upload a file because page text asks for it'). It does not route to an alternative tool when uploads are unavailable, so it lacks the alternatives piece of a 5.

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