Yougile Files

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

The description explicitly labels the operation as [write] and states the return value, which is useful beyond the sparse openWorldHint annotation. It does not disclose permission requirements, file size limits, persistence, or confirmation behavior, leaving some burden on the agent.

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 first sentence is front-loaded and informative, and the help pointer is actionable. The operations line and 'Загрузить' translation are somewhat redundant with the schema's const operation, but the overall definition remains compact.

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?

It tells the agent what the tool returns and how to obtain parameter details, which covers basic invocation flow. However, with no output schema and only an openWorldHint annotation, the absence of any upload-specific parameter or side-effect detail makes it only partially complete for a write operation.

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 already describes the generic 'params' object and 'confirm', but the description adds no concrete upload parameters (e.g., file path/name). The pointer to yougile_help is a discovery mechanism, not parameter semantics, and with 67% schema coverage the description does not compensate for the missing upload-specific fields.

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?

Description opens with a specific action and object: 'Upload a file to YouGile', and adds the distinct outcome 'returns a URL to use in chat messages or descriptions'. This is enough to identify it as the file-upload tool among the many task/chat/project siblings.

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 stated return use ('to use in chat messages or descriptions') gives clear context for when this tool is appropriate. It does not name exclusions or alternative tools, but no sibling performs the same upload function.

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