skuuy_drop_file

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the description adds real value: the ephemeral URL lifecycle, automatic TTL expiration, and a concrete free-tier rate limit of 25 drops/day. It omits auth requirements and what happens on mirroring failures, keeping it below 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 tightly packed sentences: definition first, usage scenario second, constraint third. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 six-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description conveys purpose, the transmitted artifact, and the TTL/rate-limit behavior. It does not describe the return payload shape beyond 'download URL', leaving a small gap.

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 100%, so all six parameters, including the ttl enum and required content-or-url pairing, are already documented. The description only restates the base64/remote-URL duality, adding no syntax or format detail 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?

States a specific verb pair (uploads/mirrors), the resource (inline file via base64 or remote URL), and the outcome (ephemeral public download URL). This clearly separates it from siblings like skuuy_paste (text) and skuuy_read_url (reading), letting an agent route correctly without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it: transferring files, charts, CSVs, logs, or binaries between agents/subagents/users without spending tokens on inline data. That is clear context, but it names no when-not condition or explicit alternative among the many siblings, so it stops short of a full 5.

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