o2_upload

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

Annotations already declare the mutation/safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true). The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: progress reporting and, critically, a no-overwrite guarantee, which is the single most safety-relevant behavior 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?

A single compact sentence with the action front-loaded and no filler. Efficient, though it is arguably too terse for a tool with two undocumented parameters.

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 two-parameter upload with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the essentials are present, but key gaps remain: the format of 'remote' (file path vs directory), what actually happens on a name collision, and how o2_upload relates to cloud_upload. These omissions leave the agent guessing on invocation details.

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 description coverage is 0% and neither 'local' nor 'remote' is documented in the schema. The description only loosely maps 'un archivo local' to the local param and implies O2 as the remote, adding almost no format, path, or directory-vs-file semantics that the agent needs to invoke correctly.

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?

States a specific verb (sube) and resource (un archivo local a O2), clearly distinguishing upload from sibling read/list/delete tools like o2_download and o2_list. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the near-identical cloud_upload sibling, so an agent cannot tell the two apart from the text alone.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no routing to alternatives such as cloud_upload or a status-check tool. The only implied guidance is the 'sin sobrescribir' constraint, which hints at behavior when the destination exists but does not tell the agent what to do in that case.

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