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 of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool supports binary content and explains the two input methods, which is useful. However, it does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether existing files are overwritten), permissions required, or what the response/return value looks like after a successful upload.

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 statement, a 'Methods' section, and an 'Args' list. It is slightly longer than necessary but every sentence adds value and the front-loaded opening sentence gives immediate context. No redundant information.

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?

The description covers parameters thoroughly, but it lacks information about the outcome of the upload (e.g., response format, success/failure behavior, or whether it creates vs overwrites a resource). Since there is no output schema, the description should include at least a brief note on what the tool returns or what happens after execution.

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?

The schema has no descriptions for its 5 parameters, but the description explicitly explains every parameter: local_path, file_name, file_content_base64, current_dir, and resource_type. It also clarifies the relationship between parameters (Method 1 vs Method 2) and provides defaults, fully compensating for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 tool's function: 'Upload a file to the resource area' with support for binary formats like jar/zip. This distinguishes it from sibling tools such as ds_online_create_file (which likely handles text file creation) and ds_update_resource_content (which updates existing content).

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 provides clear context on the two methods for providing file content (local_path vs file_name + base64), making the usage explicit. However, it does not mention when to use this tool over alternatives like ds_online_create_file or ds_update_resource_content, nor does it state any exclusions or prerequisites.

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