Upload a build

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the return payload and the visibility implication of publishing a checkpoint ('the build QA should grab'), plus the defaulting of `file` and `project`. However, it says nothing about authentication/permissions, whether an upload overwrites an existing build, or failure modes for a mutation-style 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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and output, followed by the two behavioral conditionals. No filler or redundancy; every clause carries routing or behavioral 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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by naming the returns (install URLs, QR image) and the optional release URL implied by the `release` param. For a 6-parameter tool with full schema coverage this is close to sufficient, though auth/prerequisite context is absent.

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 the schema already documents every parameter including the default-to-last-artifact and default-project behaviors. The description mostly restates that schema content, adding only the rationale for the `branch` vs no-`branch` split, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Upload an .apk, .aab or .ipa to a buildtree project') and even names the return payload ('install URLs plus a QR code image'). This distinguishes it cleanly from siblings like buildtree_build (which produces the artifact) and buildtree_get_install_links (which retrieves links for an existing build).

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?

Gives explicit conditional guidance: omit `branch` to publish the environment checkpoint, pass `branch` for a pre-merge preview, and notes `file` falls back to the last buildtree_build artifact. It does not name alternative tools or state exclusions, but the mode-selection rules are clear and actionable.

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