Files: upload

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, but the description adds important behavioral context beyond that: files are private by default, public files can be fetched without signing in, and it returns id and stored name. It does not mention file size limits, allowed types, or error behavior, so not a 5.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action and outcome, then privacy behavior, then integration guidance. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 two-parameter upload tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, return values, privacy semantics, and downstream usage. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to call it correctly.

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%, so the schema already documents path and public with descriptions. The description adds meaning by explaining that public files are fetchable without authentication, which goes beyond the schema's 'Make the file publicly accessible' text. Baseline 4 is appropriate given full schema coverage plus a useful clarification.

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: uploads a file from a local path into project file storage and returns its new id and stored name. This is precise and distinctions from siblings like files_get or files_list are obvious.

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?

Provides clear context: use the returned id as the value of a file field with data_create or data_update. This links the tool to downstream usage. No explicit exclusions or alternatives are named (e.g., when not to upload), but the primary usage context is well defined.

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