Upload Local File

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context beyond the annotations: the upload is streamed so request-size limits don't apply, and the local path must be inside a configured root. It stops short of stating overwrite/conflict behavior for an existing remote file.

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 sentences, no filler, with the core action first and the constraint second. Every clause carries information the agent can act on.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the safety profile is covered by annotations. The description covers what gets uploaded, how (streamed), and the root restriction; only the overwrite/conflict semantics of an existing remote file are unaddressed.

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% and both parameters are documented there, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the FTP_LOCAL_ROOTS constraint already present in the localPath schema description and adds nothing about path format, separators or relative vs absolute paths.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Upload a file from this computer to the FTP server by path') and adds the streamed qualifier. It differentiates itself from the sibling upload-file only implicitly, via 'from this computer' and 'by path', without naming the alternative, so it falls just short of 5.

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 gives a hard precondition (only files inside FTP_LOCAL_ROOTS can be uploaded), which helps the agent know when the call will succeed. However, it never explains when to choose this over the sibling 'upload-file', leaving the key routing decision to inference.

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