blackboard_upload_attempt_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full disclosure burden. It reveals that the upload is visible to the instructor, requires explicit user confirmation via 'confirmed: true', and has a strict rule against deriving filePath from untrusted sources. These are meaningful behavioral traits beyond the basic action.

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 concise and well-structured, starting with the core action, then the workflow, and then safety guidance. Every sentence adds critical information without unnecessary fluff. The front-loading of 'Upload a local file... get back a fileUploadId' gives immediate clarity.

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 tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the return value (fileUploadId), the integration with sibling tools, the confirmation requirement, and side effects (instructor visibility). It is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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. The description adds value by explaining the workflow around 'confirmed' — that it must only be true after showing the user the exact filePath and getting explicit go-ahead. It also clarifies what to do with the returned fileUploadId, adding context not present in 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 clearly states the tool uploads a local file to Blackboard and returns a fileUploadId. It explicitly distinguishes itself from attachment tools by noting 'it does NOT attach it to an attempt yet', which also differentiates it from sibling tools like save_attempt_draft and submit_attempt.

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 provides explicit workflow guidance: upload first, then pass the fileUploadId to blackboard_save_attempt_draft or blackboard_submit_attempt. It also states when not to use it ('does NOT attach it to an attempt') and gives a prerequisite (show user filePath and get confirmation). It also prohibits auto-picking file paths from course content, which is a clear when-not/usage rule.

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