storage_upload_file

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the base64 encoding requirement, which is already present in the schema. It does not disclose whether the upload overwrites existing files, whether it creates buckets, authentication requirements, or return values.

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 sentence of six words is extremely concise and front-loaded. No unnecessary words; the key purpose is immediately clear.

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?

Despite the small tool surface, the lack of annotations and output schema leaves the description needing to explain behavior and return values. It doesn't, so the contextual completeness is limited to the basic action.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no semantics beyond the schema; 'base64 encoded' repeats the parameter description for file_base64. It does not clarify relationships like bucket/path or content_type default.

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 the verb 'Upload' and identifies the resource 'a file to storage', which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like storage_download_file or storage_delete_file. The addition of '(base64 encoded)' specifies the required input format.

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 when an agent needs to upload a file to storage, but it does not provide explicit guidance on prerequisites (e.g., bucket must exist), exclusions (e.g., when to use db_insert for metadata), or alternatives among sibling tools.

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