cloud_storage_upload_file

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

The description discloses the return format ('Success!!' or exception message), which is additional behavioral information beyond the operation. However, it does not mention important behaviors like whether existing objects are overwritten, whether the bucket must exist, or any permission requirements. With no annotations, more transparency would be expected, but the return value disclosure is a positive.

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 and concise: purpose, args, return. Each sentence earns its place. No fluff or redundant wording.

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 purpose, args, and return, but the mismatch between the documented arguments and the schema's 'request' object is a significant gap. The agent may not know to pass the listed args as properties of the request object. Also lacks alternative tool suggestions, but for a simple upload, this is near-sufficient.

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 lists three parameters with clear meanings and optionality (absolute_file_path required, object_name and bucket_name optional). This compensates for the 0% schema description coverage. However, there is a mismatch: the schema shows a single 'request' object with additionalProperties, while the description implies separate arguments. This could confuse the agent about how to structure the invocation.

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 'Upload a file to cloud storage' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like download, list, and delete. The name and description align perfectly.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like cloud_storage_download_file or list_objects. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or context about when an upload is appropriate. The description only states what the tool does, not when to use it.

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