upload_audio

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses auth requirement but nothing else: no mention of side effects (e.g., resource creation, overwrite behavior), rate limits, or what happens on duplicate files. This is insufficient for an upload 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?

The description is very short (one sentence), which is concise, but it sacrifices essential information. It lacks structure—no front-loading of critical usage instructions. It earns its place but doesn't do enough.

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 7 required parameters, no output schema, and no parameter guidance, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain return value, parameter roles, or how to successfully invoke the tool. Essential context is missing.

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 has 7 required parameters with no descriptions (0% coverage). The description adds zero information about parameter meanings, valid values, formats, or constraints. The agent has no way to correctly populate inputs.

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 action ('upload an audio file') and the target platform ('RedPanal'). It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools (download_sample, get_audio_detail, list_audios) which perform different operations. However, it lacks details on what 'upload' entails (e.g., creating vs replacing).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., when to download instead). No context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions. The description only states the action without any conditional advice.

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