upload

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that a signed link is returned, SHA-256 is computed, guest mode works without API key (10 MB limit), and larger files need an API key. It also mentions both agent_link and human_link outputs. Does not cover error cases, but overall transparent.

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?

Two sentences, no extra words. First sentence states main action and return type. Second sentence adds SHA-256 and authentication mode with limits. Information is front-loaded and every sentence contributes.

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?

Without an output schema, the description effectively explains the two return link types and integrity check. For a 7-parameter tool, it covers authentication modes and limits. It lacks error handling details, but overall provides a complete enough picture for a typical upload scenario.

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% with descriptions for all 7 parameters, so the schema already explains each parameter. The description adds value by explaining return format and authentication context, but does not add deeper semantic meaning to individual parameters beyond the 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?

Description clearly states 'Upload a file from the local filesystem and get a signed link.' It specifies the verb (upload) and the resource (file), and differentiates from sibling tools like delete_upload, file_info, and list_uploads by being the only upload action.

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?

Provides clear guidance on when to use: for uploading files. It explains guest mode vs. API key mode, file size limits, and hints at TTL options. Though it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings, the context is sufficient for an agent to decide when to invoke.

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