dataset_upload_file

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

Annotations provide no safety hints (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint all false). The description does not disclose potential side effects, such as whether existing data in the dataset is replaced or appended, or any file format restrictions. No authorization requirements or rate limits are mentioned.

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, front-loaded sentence that wastes no words. Every part directly adds to understanding the tool's function. There is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 the tool's simplicity (3 parameters, no output schema), the description lacks important context: file format expectations, whether the ingest is synchronous or asynchronous, error handling, and any return value or confirmation. It is underspecified for reliable agent use.

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 67% (2 of 3 parameters have descriptions). The tool description adds no additional meaning for the parameters; e.g., 'targetSplit' remains unexplained beyond its name and type. The description does not compensate for the missing parameter documentation.

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 archive file) and the secondary action (start ingest), and specifies it's for an existing dataset. It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like upload_folder by mentioning 'archive file', but lacks explicit differentiation.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like dataset_upload_folder or dataset_upload_video. No prerequisites, such as the dataset must exist, are stated explicitly. No exclusions or when-not-to-use instructions.

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