manus_file_upload

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

With no annotations, the description fully outlines the multi-step behavior: create presigned URL, PUT bytes, and wait until uploaded. It also mentions the default wait behavior and the wait_for_processing option. Missing details like auth or rate limits, but still strong for a non-annotation tool.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and workflow. Every word adds value. No redundancy or fluff.

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 6 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main workflow and output (file record with file_id). It could detail more about poll_interval_sec and timeout, but overall it is sufficient for an upload 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?

The description adds meaning beyond the schema for source (explaining the three options), filename (derived from path/url), and wait_for_processing (polling behavior). For the remaining params (wait_timeout_sec, poll_interval_sec, content_type), it adds little, but the 50% coverage is partially compensated.

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 verb (upload), resource (file), and the end-to-end process including presigned URL, PUT, and waiting. It distinguishes from siblings like manus_file_create (which may just create a record) by emphasizing the full upload and return of file_id.

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 explicitly states the three acceptable input forms (local path, base64, public URL), which tells the agent when to use this tool. However, it does not mention any alternatives or when not to use it, leaving some ambiguity.

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