upload_local_asset

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only mentions reading and uploading, but omits important details such as authentication requirements (token/cookie), side effects (e.g., creating or overwriting content), and error behavior. This is insufficient for a mutating operation.

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 a single, direct sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded and immediately conveys the core action, making it an excellent example of conciseness.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and 4 parameters, this 9-word description is too sparse. It does not explain how to invoke the tool successfully, what the response looks like, or any caveats. The description covers only the surface functionality, leaving the agent to guess on critical usage 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%, so the description must compensate. It implicitly explains local_path (local file) and api_url (Plone endpoint), but completely fails to clarify the meaning or purpose of token and cookie parameters, which are likely authentication credentials. The description adds minimal value over the raw schema.

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 tool reads a local file and uploads it to Plone. It specifies both the source (local filesystem) and destination (Plone), distinguishing it from sibling tools like upload_file, which likely handles other upload scenarios.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like upload_file, or what prerequisites (e.g., session context, authentication) might be needed. The description solely states the action without contextual or exclusionary information.

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