Upload Expansion File

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal a significant side effect—committing a new edit—and explicitly states the read-only mode restriction. However, it does not mention permissions, edit lifecycle details, reversibility, or the impact on existing edits, which are important for a state-changing 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 no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the read-only warning is a concise, valuable second sentence. 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?

The presence of an output schema and 100% parameter coverage reduces the need for return-value or parameter explanation. Still, the description leaves ambiguity about whether the tool creates the edit itself or requires an existing one, and it does not address the large sibling toolset, making the description less complete than it could be for an agent navigating many related upload/update tools.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the input schema already provides; it does not elaborate on file_path, version_code, or expansion_file_type 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?

The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Upload an APK expansion file (OBB) to a new edit and commit it.' This clearly identifies the operation and the artifact. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling upload tools like upload_apk or upload_bundle, so it stops short of a 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?

The phrase 'to a new edit and commit it' implies the context of creating and committing an edit, and 'Disabled in read-only mode' gives an explicit when-not. However, there is no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as upload_apk, upload_bundle, patch_expansion_file, or update_expansion_file, so usage guidance remains largely implied.

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