Upload File

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

Beyond annotations (destructive, non-read-only), the description adds security constraints (paths under a root) and a response behavior (only safe file names returned). This is meaningful context beyond what annotations alone reveal. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two concise sentences with front-loaded action and no fluff. Each sentence earns its place: the first states the operation, the second adds essential constraints.

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?

Given the input schema (which documents all parameters), annotations (destructive), and presence of an output schema, the description is sufficient. It includes the key security constraint and response behavior. A minor gap is not clarifying when to prefer this over element_click_and_upload, but for a file-input tool this is acceptable.

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 coverage is 100%, and the schema already describes the paths parameter as under DP_MCP_UPLOAD_ROOT with absolute paths not echoed. The description's mention of that constraint is redundant. Other parameters (timeout, selector) are fully covered by the schema, so the description adds minimal parameter value.

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 uses a specific verb ('Set') and a resource type ('input[type=file]'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It strongly differentiates from siblings like element_type (text input) and element_click_and_upload (click-triggered upload).

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 usage context by stating files must be under DP_MCP_UPLOAD_ROOT, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives such as element_click_and_upload. No exclusions or alternative tool names are given, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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