ateam_upload_connector

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Mentions Core restart and two input modes, but omits destructive potential, auth requirements, rate limits, and error conditions common to mutation tools.

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 efficient sentences with no redundancy. Every word adds value. Front-loaded with key purpose and constraint.

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?

No output schema. Covers purpose, modes, and sibling differentiation. Could clarify exclusivity of github and files, and add result expectations. Still fairly complete for a 4-param tool.

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 covers 100% of parameters. Description adds context about github vs files modes and example connector ID, but does not significantly extend schema information. Baseline 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?

Description specifies uploading connector code to Core and restarting without redeploying skills, clearly distinguishing from sibling ateam_build_and_run. Includes examples (server.js, UI assets, plugins) and alternative input modes.

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?

Explicitly contrasts with ateam_build_and_run for connector-only changes, guiding when to use. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use scenarios, but context is clear.

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