overleaf_upload_file

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly states the key side effect: a same-named file is preserved unless overwrite: true is intentionally supplied. It also labels the tool as 'Primary file-writing tool,' signaling mutation. It does not mention return values or error conditions, but it covers the most important destructive-behavior guard.

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 three sentences with no filler: it front-loads the core action, then gives use cases, then addresses overwrite safety and the main alternative. Each sentence earns its place and the structure is easy for an agent to parse.

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?

For a file-upload mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, typical usage, overwrite safety, and the key ZIP alternative. It lacks details about success/failure responses or authentication prerequisites, but those are not essential for correct invocation given the schema and sibling context.

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 the schema already documents project_id, local_path, and overwrite. The description reinforces the overwrite semantics and gives concrete file-type use cases, but it does not add substantial new parameter meaning beyond what is in the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'upload one local file to the project root.' It also clarifies common use cases (after editing a downloaded file, or adding images/.bib/.cls/.tex files) and distinguishes itself from ZIP import. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from overleaf_create_file, and 'project root' is slightly ambiguous given local_path can include relative subpaths like figures/overview.png.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: after editing a file from overleaf_download_file, or when adding images, .bib, .cls, and .tex files. It also states when not to use it ('ZIP import uses overleaf_create_project_from_zip instead') and explains the overwrite opt-in behavior, so an agent can select it correctly.

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