upload_folder

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses parallelism, recursion, that the destination folder is created under `path` using the source folder's own name, and the default skip-existing vs overwrite=true conflict policy. It omits error behavior, permission requirements, and what happens on partial failure, keeping it short of a 5.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the destination-naming and conflict behavior. No filler, no repetition of schema text.

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 3-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what is uploaded, where it lands, and how collisions are handled. It leaves out return value and failure/partial-upload behavior, which an agent would want given no output schema exists.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: it clarifies that `path` is the parent under which a folder named after the local folder is created, and that `overwrite` governs skipped-vs-replaced existing files rather than merge semantics.

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 with scope: 'upload a whole local folder recursively in one call (parallel)'. This distinguishes it implicitly from upload_file and create_folder via the 'whole folder / recursive' framing, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by 'whole local folder recursively' versus the sibling upload_file, but the description never says when to prefer this over calling upload_file per file, nor any prerequisites such as login state or permissions.

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