upsert_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the PUT/POST behavior and the returned operation field. It does not mention side effects, error conditions, or permission requirements, which is acceptable for a straightforward file write but not exhaustive.

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 well-structured with a summary line, a bullet list of arguments, and a return statement. It is concise and front-loaded. One could slightly tighten the bullet list, but overall it is efficient.

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 tool has an output schema, the description's brief return explanation suffices. All 3 required parameters are explained, and the behavior is clear. It is complete enough for a tool with moderate complexity.

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?

The description provides clear, semantic explanations for all three parameters (share_id as UUID, file_path as path, content as text) beyond the schema titles. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description fully compensates.

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 ('Create or update a file') and resource ('in a folder share'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like delete_file, read_file, and write_document by being the recommended write tool. The verb-resource combination is specific and 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?

The description explicitly states the tool automatically detects file existence and uses PUT/POST accordingly. It marks itself as 'the recommended way to write files to folder shares,' providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use alternatives like write_document, leaving some ambiguity.

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