upload_file

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

The description adds a key behavioral constraint (max 20MB) beyond what annotations provide. It aligns with annotations (idempotentHint, non-destructive). However, it could disclose whether duplicate file paths overwrite or create new versions.

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 concise: two sentences plus an args section. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and the args section is clear and efficient. No extraneous text.

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 one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential behavior. It could be improved by indicating what the tool returns (e.g., file ID) or prerequisites (file existence), but it is largely adequate.

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 description adds the 20MB size limit and clarifies that file_path is a local path. Since the schema has 0% description coverage, this is a valuable addition. It could specify allowed file types or formats.

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), the target (Pruna AI), and the context (editing/video workflows). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools that perform other operations like editing or generating.

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 context on when to use this tool (for editing/video workflows) but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives. The sibling tools list implies related use cases.

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