upload_feed

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

Annotations already set readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description's mention of 'Upload' is consistent and adds no contradiction. The description does add behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying the HTTP method (multipart/form-data) and the endpoint ('/v3/feeds'), as well as the return value (feed id). It does not disclose potential side effects like asynchronous processing or rate limits, but these may be covered by the openWorldHint annotation. Overall, this is adequate but not rich.

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 a single, focused sentence that front-loads the purpose and includes the essential technical details (multipart/form-data, endpoint, return value). There is no redundant or vague phrasing; every clause 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 mutation tool with 5 required parameters, all fully described in the schema, and an output schema present, the description is nearly complete. It covers the action, method, endpoint, and return value. It does not explicitly mention prerequisites like file accessibility or that the operation may be asynchronous, but these are either implied ('local path') or not critical for invocation. The description fills the essential gaps left by the schema.

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 every parameter has a documented description in the schema. The tool description does not add any extra meaning beyond restating 'feed file' and 'feed type'; it does not elaborate on parameter formats, constraints, or relationships. Since the schema already handles parameter documentation, a baseline of 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 feed file'), the resource ('for a feed type'), and the specific mechanism ('Posts the local file as multipart/form-data to /v3/feeds'). It also tells the caller the key result ('returns the feed id'). This is distinct from siblings which handle endpoint listing, generic calling, or downloads, so there's no ambiguity.

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 context (uploading a feed file) but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over other tools or provide exclusions. There is no mention of alternatives or conditions like 'use call_endpoint for non-feed operations'. However, the tool's specificity (multipart feed upload) makes the intent clear enough for most agents.

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