Upload Deobfuscation File

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose that the operation is 'Disabled in read-only mode,' indicating this is a write action with invocation constraints. However, it does not mention required permissions, whether an existing file is replaced, or other side effects, leaving notable gaps for a mutation tool.

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?

The description is two sentences with zero redundant words. The core action and file type are front-loaded, and the read-only restriction is a separate, clearly relevant note. Every word earns its place.

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 4-parameter upload tool with an output schema and self-explanatory parameter descriptions, the description is mostly adequate. It covers the resource type and a key invocation constraint. It is not fully complete because it omits usage alternatives and deeper side-effect detail, but the low complexity makes this a minor gap.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds semantic value by explaining that the file is a 'ProGuard mapping or native symbols' file, which directly corresponds to the deobfuscation_file_type enum values ('proguard', 'nativeCode'). This helps the agent map the parameter to real-world file types.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Upload a deobfuscation (ProGuard mapping or native symbols) file.' This clearly identifies the operation and distinguishes it from sibling upload tools like upload_apk, upload_bundle, and upload_expansion_file by resource type.

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 implies usage when you have a deobfuscation file to associate with an app version, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives or mention exclusions. The read-only mode restriction is a context clue but not a direct usage guideline.

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