upload_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions SFTP (implying secure transfer) and the return format, but doesn't cover critical behavioral aspects like authentication requirements, error handling, file size limits, overwrite behavior, or network timeouts. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, args, returns) and uses minimal sentences that each serve a purpose. The first sentence states the core function, followed by organized parameter explanations and return information. It could be slightly more concise by integrating the parameter explanations more fluidly, but overall it's 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 a mutation tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema (which handles return values), the description covers the basic purpose and parameters adequately. However, it lacks important contextual details like authentication requirements, error conditions, or performance characteristics that would be helpful for safe and effective use. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain returns, but other gaps remain.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining all three parameters with clear examples and context. It specifies 'server' as a server name with an example, 'local_path' as an absolute path to the source file, and 'remote_path' as an absolute destination path. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 specific action ('Upload a file') and resource ('to a remote server via SFTP'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like download_file (which performs the inverse operation) and execute/execute_on_group (which run commands rather than transfer files). The verb+resource combination is precise and unambiguous.

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 implies usage context through the mention of SFTP and parameter explanations, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like download_file or when not to use it (e.g., for local file operations). It provides basic guidance through parameter descriptions but lacks explicit comparative guidance.

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