upservice_upload_file

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

Annotations already indicate non-readOnly and non-destructive. The description adds that the tool uploads a file given an absolute local path, but does not disclose permissions, rate limits, or side effects. No contradiction with annotations.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the purpose. It is clear and efficient, though the parameter description could be omitted since the schema covers it.

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 low complexity (1 parameter), annotations, and an output schema (which mentions returned JSON with ID), the description is mostly complete. It explains the return value and the purpose of the file ID, but could mention error cases or file size limits.

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?

The schema already provides a description for 'file_path' ('Absolute local filesystem path of the file to upload'). The description repeats this in a slightly different wording ('absolute local path'), adding no new semantic value. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('upload a local file to Upservice') with a specific purpose (attach to a task via returned file ID). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'upservice_upload_file_to_channel' which uploads to a channel.

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 usage for attaching files to tasks but does not explicitly provide when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or compare with alternatives like 'upservice_upload_file_to_channel'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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