upload_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose a key behavioral trait: the operation never publishes the draft, which is valuable. However, it doesn't mention whether the upload is additive, whether it replaces existing files, whether it requires authentication, or what happens if the draft is already published. The single behavioral guarantee is helpful but incomplete for a mutation-like 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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The key action and the critical non-behavior (never publishes) are front-loaded. Every word earns its place.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description is too thin. An agent needs to know what 'id' refers to, whether the file is added or replaces existing content, and what the result of the upload is. The sibling tools suggest a draft workflow, but the description doesn't connect to that workflow explicitly. The 'never publishes' note is good, but overall the description leaves too much to inference.

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 for the three parameters. It does not explain what 'id' refers to (presumably the draft ID), what 'filePath' means (local path vs. remote path), or what 'remoteName' does. The description only mentions 'local file' and 'existing draft,' which partially maps to filePath and id, but remoteName is entirely unexplained. This is a significant gap.

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 action ('Upload a local file') and the target resource ('an existing draft'), and distinguishes it from publishing by explicitly saying 'Never publishes the draft.' This is a specific verb+resource pairing that an agent can act on. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative, but the contrast with publish_draft is implicit and clear.

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 implies the tool is for adding files to a draft, and the explicit 'Never publishes the draft' provides a useful exclusion. However, it doesn't state when to use this tool versus alternatives like build_file_manifest or update_draft, nor does it mention prerequisites like the draft needing to exist or the file path being accessible. Usage context is implied but not fully specified.

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