upload_file

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden обращения. It states the action but does not disclose side effects, validation of file_path, whether the action is reversible, required page state, or what happens after the file is attached. This is minimal but not misleading.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word is purposeful, and the resume hint is useful. It earns a high score for conciseness even though it lacks technical detail.

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 four required parameters, no annotations, and no descriptions in the schema, this one-sentence description is far from complete. The agent has no way to know the purpose of ref, role, or reason, or what counts as a valid file_path.

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 explain the four required parameters. It only loosely rephrases file_path as a 'local file' and gives no meaning for ref, role, or reason. The agent cannot correctly construct the required arguments from this description.

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 a specific verb ('Attach') and identifies the resource ('a local file to a file input'), which is clear and distinct from generic form-filling siblings like fill_field. The parenthetical 'typically a resume' adds useful domain context. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the file-input framing is specific enough.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The 'typically a resume' remark only implies a job-application context. The agent is left to infer when attaching a file is the correct action.

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