upload_file

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

Without annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits on its own. It does explain the two-step upload process and mentions that content is base64 encoded, but it does not state potential side effects, auth requirements, error behaviors, or whether it overwrites existing files. This is a moderate level of disclosure.

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 highly concise and well-structured: a two-sentence purpose statement followed by a clean Arg list. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 tool has four required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description provides a clear action statement and parameter definitions, which is a good baseline. However, it omits return value behavior, error handling, and edge cases like file overwrites, leaving some gaps for a tool with no structured output.

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 input schema has zero description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does by listing each parameter with a concise explanation in the Args section, clarifying agent_id, file_name, remote_path, and content. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema, though it lacks deeper format or constraint details.

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 explicitly states the tool's function: uploading a file to the Mythic server and then to a remote target. The verb 'upload' and the two-stage resource description make the purpose clear and distinguishable from sibling tools like read_file or run_shell_command.

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 implies the tool should be used for uploading files but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it instead of alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. This gives a clear context but lacks explicit decision-making support.

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