Files: upload

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is partially covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not disclose overwrite behavior, auth requirements, size limits, or what the 'public' flag implies at runtime.

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 single sentence is front-loaded and waste-free, which is good, but it is so terse that it functions more as under-specification than true conciseness.

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 low-complexity two-parameter upload tool with full schema coverage and annotations covering safety, the description is minimally adequate. It omits any note on overwrite semantics, return value, or the public-accessibility side effect, which would be useful even without an output 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 coverage is 100% with only two documented parameters, so the schema carries full parameter meaning. The description adds nothing about the 'path' format or the effect of setting 'public', so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a clear verb+resource ('Upload a file'), so an agent understands the action. However, it essentially restates the tool name/title and offers no differentiation from siblings like files_get, files_list, or files_delete.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use upload versus other files_* tools, nor any prerequisite or context. The operation is relatively unambiguous, but the description provides zero when-to-use direction or alternatives.

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