Gitea: Upload chunk

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false; the description adds genuinely new behavior — the strict in-order arrival requirement — which affects how the agent must sequence calls. However, it does not say what happens on an out-of-order or duplicate chunk (error vs. overwrite), does not mention retry risk given non-idempotency, and gives no size limits or session-expiry behavior. Useful but incomplete for a destructive, non-idempotent mutation.

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, all earning their place: action first, constraint second, alternative-routing last. No filler or repetition, though the fallback sentence could be tightened slightly.

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 5-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema and no parameter documentation anywhere, the description covers the core mechanics and sequencing but omits error handling, chunk size expectations, the checksum parameter's purpose, and what a successful append returns. Adequate to start a call, not adequate to call it robustly.

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 carries the full burden. It clarifies that data_b64 is base64-encoded and that index relates to ordering, but leaves site, session_id, and especially the optional chunk_sha256 (verification? checked server-side? failure mode?) completely unexplained. Half the parameters gain no meaning from the description.

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 ('Append one base64-encoded chunk to a Gitea binary upload session'), which is distinguishable from the related start/finish/abort siblings at the session level. The description also names the preferred alternative (the HTTP upload URL from gitea_upload_start), so the agent can place this tool in the workflow without opening other schemas.

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?

Explicitly says chunks must arrive in order and that this is a fallback path to be used only when the HTTP upload URL from gitea_upload_start is not available. This is a direct conditional routing rule to an alternate mechanism, which is exactly what an agent needs for tool selection.

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