phabricator_file_upload

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only states the basic action and return value, without disclosing behavioral traits such as file size limits, permissions required, or whether the upload is destructive/reversible. This is insufficient for a mutation tool with no annotation support.

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?

Two sentences: first clearly states action and return, second adds contextual follow-up usage. Every sentence adds value, no wasted words. Front-loaded with key 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?

The description explains the return value and how to use it, which is good given no output schema. However, it lacks details on constraints such as file size limits, permanence, or error handling, which would be helpful for an upload tool.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., encoding requirements for data_base64 or accepted formats for viewPolicy).

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?

Description clearly states it uploads a file to Phabricator and returns a PHID. It also explains the follow-up usage with phabricator_file_info to get the file ID for embedding in Remarkup, which distinguishes it from other file-related tools like phabricator_file_info and phabricator_file_search.

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?

Description implies the tool is for uploading files and provides context on how to use the returned PHID. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions, but the workflow is clear.

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