manus_file_upload

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the three-step process and the default waiting behavior, but does not mention side effects, error handling, or authorization requirements. The disclosure is moderate but incomplete for a mutation 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 cover the core workflow, source options, and return value. Information is front-loaded and every phrase carries meaning with no redundancy. Highly efficient.

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 return value. It lacks details on error handling and authentication, but the schema provides constraints. The overall completeness is good for an upload function.

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 50% (3 of 6 top-level parameters have descriptions). The description adds value by explaining the three source types and the wait_for_processing default behavior. However, it does not add meaning for timeout/interval parameters, which have schema constraints but no description. The description compensates partially but not fully.

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 uses a specific verb 'Upload' and clearly identifies the resource 'file'. It enumerates the end-to-end steps (create presigned URL, PUT bytes, wait) and specifies the return value. It distinguishes itself from sibling file tools (create, delete, detail) by describing the complete upload workflow.

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 states that it accepts local path, base64, or public URL, implying when to use it. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it (e.g., if file already uploaded) or comparison with alternatives like manus_file_create. The usage context is clear but lacks exclusions.

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