deobfuscation_files_upload

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It states 'Upload' implying mutation, but it does not disclose side effects (e.g., overwriting existing mapping), permission requirements, file validation behavior, or any limits. The behavioral impact is underdescribed for a write 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 extremely concise with two short sentences. The purpose is front-loaded and every word serves a clear function. No redundancy or unnecessary information.

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 the complexity (5 required params, no annotations, no output schema, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It does not explain the edit context, the need for an existing edit, file format expectations, or what happens after upload. Critical context for proper invocation is missing.

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 60%. The description adds value by explaining the enum options for 'deobfuscationFileType'. It implicitly relates 'apkVersionCode' to the version. However, it does not elaborate on 'packageName', 'editId', or 'file' beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema covers most but description adds moderate context.

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 verb 'Upload' and the resource 'ProGuard mapping file for a specific version code'. It also mentions the file type options, making the core purpose unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling upload tools like apks_upload or images_upload, but the tool name itself provides specificity.

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 a hint to use 'deobfuscationFileType' with specific values, but it does not provide any context on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or when not to use it. No guidance on the edit workflow or required prior actions like edits_insert.

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