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 discloses the per-type size limits (image 20MB, video 100MB, audio 50MB), the two input modes (source_url vs file_base64 + file_name), and the return value (file_url). It does not mention authentication or what happens if both source modes are used, but these are moderate omissions for an upload tool.

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 compact and well ordered: it states the primary function and return value first, then the input sources, then the limits. Each clause contributes useful information with no redundant phrases.

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?

The description covers the complete upload workflow (upload → file_url → use in generate/upscale), both input methods, and size constraints, which is sufficient for a 3-parameter upload tool. The missing output schema is partially compensated by explicitly identifying the returned file_url. It does not specify behavior when both source_url and file_base64 are provided, but that is a minor edge case.

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 input schema already provides 100% parameter coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the source_url/file_base64 duality and the file_name requirement, but does not add new parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema. The size limits and downstream usage describe the operation as a whole, not individual parameters.

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 uses the clear verb 'Upload' with a specific target ('storage Bumi Digital') and states the return value (file_url) as well as its downstream use as input for generate/upscale. This distinguishes it from the sibling generation and upscaling tools that consume the returned URL.

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 explains the tool's role — to prepare files for use in generate/upscale by returning a file_url. It also details the two source modes (public URL vs base64) and implies when each is appropriate (file_name required with base64). It does not name sibling alternatives to exclude, but the usage context is clear.

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