upload

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds useful non-obvious traits: the transfer uses FTPS, the filename must match the {part}-{variant}-{rev}.gcode.3mf pattern, and the operation does not start a print. It stops short of describing overwrite behavior, authentication, or error conditions, but it does more than the minimum.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The main action and transport are front-loaded, the naming constraint follows immediately, and the critical side-effect note ('Does not start a print') is saved for the end, which is efficient.

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 simple 2-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the essential invocation details: protocol, required file naming pattern, and the absence of a print side effect. It lacks details on overwrite or connection requirements, but nothing critical to calling the tool correctly is missing.

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 schema already documents localPath and remoteName including the default behavior. The description reinforces that the file is a .gcode.3mf artifact but does not add significant new meaning about either parameter beyond the schema.

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 names a specific verb ('Upload'), a specific resource ('sliced Imagine artifact'), and a specific transport ('over FTPS'). It also states a concrete side-effect boundary ('Does not start a print'), which separates it from sibling print tools. This is clear enough for an agent to know what the tool does.

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 a workflow position: the file must be a sliced artifact and uploading does not start a print, so it is likely used between slicing and printing. However, it never explicitly names alternatives or says 'use this when...' or 'do not use this when...'. The only exclusion given is indirect via the print boundary.

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