upload_file

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

The description reveals important behavior beyond the annotations: it creates files if absent and overwrites if present. The annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and destructive hints, so the bar is lower, and the description adds useful context about content-type limitations and overwrite semantics. No contradiction with the annotations exists.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded. The first sentence states the core operation, the second gives usage guidance, and the remaining lines cover behavior, parameters, and return value. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 text upload tool, this description is complete: it covers what the tool does, when to use it, the distinction from the binary variant, create/overwrite behavior, path semantics with an example, and the return value. The output schema and annotations cover the rest.

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%, so the description carries the full burden, and it fully compensates. It defines 'path' as relative to the user's root with a concrete example, and defines 'content' as the text to write. This goes far beyond the schema's bare 'Path' and 'Content' titles.

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 opens with 'Upload or overwrite a text file in Nextcloud', a specific verb plus resource. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from upload_file_binary by scoping to plain-text content (markdown, source code, CSV, JSON). This clearly separates it from the most similar sibling.

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 tool states exactly when to use it ('plain-text content') and explicitly routes binary content to 'upload_file_binary instead'. This gives the agent a direct decision rule, including the alternative tool name, rather than leaving the choice to inference.

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