acs_upload_config

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention side effects, permissions required, reversibility, or the RPC nature (beyond the label). For an upload operation that likely modifies server state, this lacks critical transparency.

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, concise sentence, front-loading the core action. The parenthetical 'Upload RPC' adds a small amount of extra context without waste. It is efficient, though slightly terse.

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 the tool's complexity (5 params, 2 required), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It provides no context about upload workflow, possible failures, or how it differs from related config tools. The agent has to infer most operational details.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter semantics beyond the schema. It does not explain the relationship between params (e.g., username/password for uploadUrl) or any special behavior, but the schema already covers the parameter names.

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 the action ('upload config file') and source ('from device'), and the parenthetical 'Upload RPC' reinforces the mechanism. It distinguishes from sibling tools like acs_download_config (download) and acs_push_config (push), making the purpose 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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions. The description merely states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and sibling context.

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