upload_file

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, and the description adds real context on top: the default no-overwrite behavior and the config-dependent default destination. It does not explain the failure mode when the file exists without overwrite=true, or the effect of create_parents, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and direction, then the required input, then the optional-input condition, then the safety default. No filler at all.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the annotations cover the safety profile. With five parameters and two (filename, create_parents) unexplained in either schema or description, the definition is close to but not fully complete.

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. It explains local_path (required), dest_folder (config-dependent optionality), and indirectly the overwrite default through the no-overwrite statement, but filename and create_parents remain entirely undocumented.

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 and resource with source and destination direction ("Upload a local file from this machine to a NAS folder"). This cleanly distinguishes it from the NAS-internal siblings copy_files, move_files, and download_file.

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?

Gives one concrete prerequisite: the local path must be provided, and dest_folder is optional when default_upload_dir is configured. However, it never says when to use upload_file versus copy_files or move_files, nor what to do when a same-named file already exists.

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