upservice_upload_file_to_channel

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

Annotations indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds return behavior (JSON with ID) but lacks details on file size limits, permission requirements, or error handling.

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, using a structured Args/Returns format with no extraneous text. It could be slightly more efficient but is well-organized.

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?

The description covers basic purpose, parameters, and return format, but given the complexity of file uploads, it omits details like supported file types, size limits, and authentication. Output schema presence is noted but not elaborated.

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 input schema provides descriptions for both parameters (file_path and channel_unique_identifier). The description repeats this info without adding new semantics, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed.

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 it uploads a local file to an external channel in Upservice. It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like upservice_upload_file and upservice_send_channel_message, though it could be more explicit about what 'external channel' means.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., upservice_upload_file or upservice_get_channel_file_url). There are no prerequisites or context for appropriate use.

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