put_modal_volume_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the force parameter behavior, default remote path, and directory treatment when path ends with '/'. However, it omits authorization needs, rate limits, and error handling (e.g., behavior when force is false and file exists). Still decent coverage for a file operation.

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 with a clear purpose sentence, followed by individual parameter explanations in bullet style, and a returns section. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy. It is appropriately sized for a tool with 4 parameters.

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 4 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description covers parameters thoroughly but lacks details on return values (just says 'dictionary containing result'), potential size limits, and network behavior. It is mostly complete but could mention upload size constraints or confirmation.

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 define all parameters. It does: volume_name, local_path, remote_path (with default and directory behavior), and force (with default and effect). It adds semantic value beyond the schema by explaining the remote_path directory treatment and the overwrite logic.

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 or directory to a Modal volume' using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like copy_modal_volume_files (copy within volumes) and remove_modal_volume_file (delete). The purpose is unambiguous.

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 does not explicitly mention when or when not to use this tool, or suggest alternatives. However, the purpose is distinct enough from siblings (e.g., upload vs copy vs remove), so usage context is implied. It could be improved by stating prerequisites (e.g., volume must exist) but is still clear.

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