file_upload

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the workflow stages (start -> upload -> end), states that end_job 'triggers ingest', and lists requirements for each operation. It doesn't cover error handling or side effects like file retention, but for a file upload tool, it provides substantial behavioral context beyond the schema.

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-organized: a clear one-sentence purpose, a formatted list of info_type options with requirements, and an Args section. Each bullet and line adds value, no redundancy. Despite its length, it's front-loaded with the core purpose and structured for quick scanning.

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's complexity (5 parameters, multiple operations, no output schema), the description is highly complete. It explains all operation modes, their prerequisites, and the overall upload workflow. It also clarifies pagination for list_jobs via skip/limit. The agent has enough to use this tool correctly without further probing.

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 entirely. It does so thoroughly: every parameter (info_type, file_path, job_id, skip, limit) is explained, with details on when each is required. The description of info_type values adds semantic meaning that the schema (which only shows a default of 'upload') completely lacks.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Upload SharpHound/AzureHound collection files to BloodHound for ingest.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools which are all read/info-oriented. It also specifies accepted file formats (.zip/.json), leaving no ambiguity about the tool's core function.

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 provides explicit usage context for each info_type operation, including required parameters (e.g., 'upload_to_job - upload a file to an existing job (requires: job_id, file_path)'). This effectively tells the agent which operation to use under what circumstances. It lacks an explicit 'use this instead of X' statement, but the sibling tools are clearly different, so the when-to-use is implied strongly.

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