td_upload_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only states the action without mentioning side effects, required permissions, file size limits, overwrite behavior, or what happens on success or failure. This is a significant gap for a tool that creates something in an external system.

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 clear sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and destination, and every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 three-parameter upload tool, the schema plus description provide the minimum viable call information. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits important context such as return values, side effects, and constraints, leaving clear gaps.

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 input schema covers all three parameters with descriptions, so the schema already explains dialog, filePath, and caption. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specifies a precise verb ('Upload'), a resource ('a local file'), and a destination ('a Telegram dialog'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like td_download_file and td_forward_file, which handle the opposite or a different operation.

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 gives no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as td_send_message, td_forward_file, or td_get_file_info. It implies a use case but does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or context where another tool would be more appropriate.

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