上传文件

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds genuine context: the upload is staged through a same-directory temporary object (implying an atomic commit) and overwrites are refused by default. This tells the agent why the operation is non-idempotent and what the safe default is, going beyond the raw hints.

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?

A single compact sentence with the safety mechanism front-loaded and the overwrite default trailing. Every clause carries information; nothing is padding.

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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering the safety profile, the description only needs to add the operational traits it does add (single-file scope, temp-object atomicity, no-overwrite default). It omits nothing critical for invoking the tool, though it could note server-alias behavior.

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 all four parameters (server, overwrite, local_path, remote_path) are already documented in the schema, including the overwrite default of false. The description restates the overwrite default but adds no new syntax or format detail, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: uploading (提交) a single local file. The qualifier '单个本地文件' implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling upload_dir, which handles directories, so an agent can route correctly without opening either schema.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives (e.g., upload_dir for directories, or how this relates to move/rename), and no prerequisites such as authentication or server selection. '默认拒绝覆盖' is a behavioral default, not usage guidance.

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