Upload File

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, and the description does not contradict these. It adds no additional behavioral context such as overwrite behavior or required permissions, but the annotations cover the core safety profile.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, with a focused note on binary encoding. There is no redundant wording and every sentence earns its place.

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 three-parameter tool with full schema coverage, a defined output schema, and annotations indicating idempotent/destructive behavior, the description covers the primary scenario. It could mention overwrite behavior or directory creation, but this is a minor gap given the structured metadata.

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 documents all three parameters with descriptions, so the description does not need to restate them. The line 'Pass encoding "base64" to upload binary content' adds pragmatic semantics to the encoding parameter beyond its enum definition.

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 uses the specific verb 'Upload' and identifies the resource as 'file to the FTP server,' clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like download-file, edit-file, and append-file. It also adds a relevant detail about base64 encoding for binary content.

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 does not explicitly compare against sibling tools or state exclusions, but the action 'upload' implies its use for putting files on the FTP server. The guidance to 'Pass encoding base64' gives a concrete condition for binary content, providing some usage direction.

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