upload_file

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

Annotations only provide destructiveHint=false, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds important context: the tool refuses existing targets and text files, and must not run concurrently with other tree changes. It doesn't detail failure modes or side effects, but the key behavioral constraints are disclosed.

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 sentences, each earning its place: the core purpose, the exclusions/alternatives, and the concurrency warning. Information is front-loaded and there is zero waste.

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 two-parameter upload tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it accepts, what it refuses, and when not to run it. It could add parameter format details, but the core decision-making context is 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 must compensate. It names the two parameters implicitly (path and local_path) but doesn't explain their format or relationship beyond 'upload a NEW binary asset'. The description adds some meaning but leaves the agent to infer that path is the destination and local_path is the source.

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 uploads a NEW binary asset only, explicitly excluding existing targets and text files. It distinguishes itself from create_file and OT edits, making its purpose unambiguous.

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?

It explicitly says when to use this tool (new binary assets) and when not to (existing targets, text files), and names alternatives (create_file and OT edits). It also warns against concurrent execution with other tree changes, providing clear usage context.

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