teamleader_files_upload

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that this step does not upload the bytes but only returns a URL for a subsequent PUT, which is a critical behavioral trait. It could add more about auth requirements or link completion, but the core side-effect (no bytes uploaded here) is well disclosed.

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?

One well-structured sentence that front-loads the main purpose (step 1, returns upload URL) then provides essential supplementary context (bytes are PUT out of band). No fluff, every clause earns its place.

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?

For a simple two-step tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it explains what is returned, the second step, and the required inputs. It also implicitly differentiates from sibling file tools. No critical information is missing for an agent to use it correctly.

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 input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some contextual meaning ('link the file to' and 'intended file name') but largely repeats schema details. It doesn't significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond the 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 it is 'Step 1 of a two-step file upload flow' and that it returns an upload URL/location, which is a specific verb+resource outcome. It also distinguishes itself from sibling file tools (list/download) by focusing on the upload initiation step.

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 provides explicit usage context by explaining the two-step flow: call this to get a URL, then PUT bytes to that URL out of band. It clearly implies when to use this tool (start an upload) without explicitly naming alternatives, but the step-based guidance is strong. It lacks explicit exclusions but is still clear.

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