upload_file

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

Annotations only indicate it's not read-only (readOnlyHint: false). The description adds valuable behavioral context: it's a 'heavyweight operation' with a warning about rate limits ('avoid calling repeatedly in quick succession'), and it 'requires authentication'. This goes beyond annotations by disclosing performance and auth traits, though it doesn't detail error handling or exact rate limits.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by critical behavioral warnings and requirements. Every sentence earns its place: the first states the action, the second adds performance context, and the third specifies auth needs. It's appropriately sized with zero waste.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (file upload with auth and performance considerations), the description covers key aspects: purpose, behavioral warnings, and auth. However, there's no output schema, and the description doesn't hint at return values or error cases. With good annotations and schema coverage, it's mostly complete but could benefit from output or error context.

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 all parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain folder_id sourcing or file format constraints). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema carries the full burden.

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 verb ('upload') and resource ('image file to a TGC folder'), and specifies the purpose ('for use in a game component'). It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'add_component_to_game' or 'update_game', but the focus on file upload is distinct enough for a 4.

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 some context ('heavyweight operation — avoid calling repeatedly in quick succession') and mentions authentication requirements, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., if there are other upload methods or sibling tools for similar purposes). This gives implied usage guidance but lacks explicit alternatives or exclusions.

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