mybox_upload

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose one genuinely useful trait — the default keeps both files on a name collision unless overwrite is set — but says nothing about permissions, size limits, or failure modes for an upload mutation.

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?

Front-loads the one-line purpose before a compact Args list, with no filler. Slightly formulaic but every line earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and all three parameters are covered. The remaining gap is the absence of any behavioral or permission context for a write operation with no annotations, but the essentials for calling it correctly are present.

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 compensate, and it documents all three parameters: path as the local file, parent_id as destination folder with root as the default, and overwrite's collision behavior. It adds real meaning beyond the bare schema, though it omits format details (e.g., what a valid folder id looks like).

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Upload one local file to MYBOX') with a useful cardinality constraint ('one local file'). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like mybox_download and mybox_create_folder by the action itself, though no sibling is named.

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?

Gives partial usage context — omit parent_id to target the drive root, and overwrite to replace a same-named file — which implies when each parameter applies. However, it offers no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance (e.g., vs mybox_create_folder) or prerequisites.

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