expansion_files_upload

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for disclosure. It only states 'Upload', which implies a write operation, but provides no details on side effects (e.g., overwriting existing files), idempotency, required permissions, or how the file is processed. This is severely lacking.

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 brief with only 6 words. While conciseness is valued, this lacks necessary structure and context. It is more of a fragment than a complete sentence, and it omits crucial details that should be included.

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 lack of output schema, no annotations, and only a sparse description, the tool definition is highly incomplete. For a 5-required-parameter upload action, the description should explain the edit workflow, file constraints, and response behavior. It fails to provide a complete picture.

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 only 40% (descriptions for packageName and editId only). The description adds no information about the other three parameters (apkVersionCode, expansionFileType, file). For example, it does not explain what values are valid for expansionFileType or the format of the file parameter. Description fails to compensate for missing schema details.

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 'Upload expansion file contents (OBB).' It uses a specific verb (Upload) and resource (expansion file contents), distinguishing it from retrieval or update tools like expansion_files_get or expansion_files_patch. However, it could be more precise about what OBB files are and their role.

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?

No usage guidelines provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives like apks_upload or bundles_upload, nor does it mention prerequisites such as needing an editId from edits_insert or context about the editing workflow.

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