files_upload_v2

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

The description indicates a mutation action ('upload') but fails to disclose behavioral traits such as size limits, required permissions, or any side effects. With no annotations, the description does not compensate for the lack of transparency.

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 a single sentence, which is concise but severely under-informative for a tool with 9 parameters. It does not front-load key information or earn its brevity through structured clarity.

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 complexity of 9 optional parameters, no schema descriptions, and no annotations, the description fails to provide a complete picture. Even though an output schema exists, the description does not integrate or reference it.

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 description adds no meaning to any of the 9 parameters, all of which lack descriptions in the schema. With 0% schema coverage, the description offers no semantic help, leaving parameters completely ambiguous.

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 identifies the verb 'Upload' and resource 'file', and specifies 'v2 API', but it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'files_upload' (v1). The purpose is clear but lacks detail on what makes v2 distinct.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions, prerequisites, or comparisons are mentioned, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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