ds_upload_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the critical trait that it returns instructions (not a performed upload) and enumerates three protocols (WebDAV, gocmd, iCommands). It stops short of stating permissions/auth needs, whether anything is actually written, or the output format.

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 repeats 'Returns how to upload' twice, which is redundant, and contains a typo ('contgent'). It is short and front-loaded, but the repetition and error cost it a point.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description must stand alone; it conveys the purpose and the key return type but omits auth/permission requirements and any detail on how the returned instructions are structured, leaving a modest gap for a tool an agent might otherwise mistake for a real upload.

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 three parameters (local_path, irods_path, is_dir) are already documented in the schema. The description only reinforces that the path must be an iRODS path, adding minimal meaning beyond the structured fields — the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb+resource (returns instructions for uploading a file/data-object to an iRODS path) and importantly clarifies the surprising behavior implied by the name 'upload_file' — it returns how to upload rather than performing the upload. It does not, however, differentiate itself from sibling write/upload paths such as ds_write_file.

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 and no alternatives named. The only constraint given is that the path must be an iRODS path; the agent is left to infer when this guidance tool is preferable to ds_write_file or ds_download_file.

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