files_upload

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

Goes beyond the annotations by disclosing that the filename is sanitized, upload size is bounded, and multipart encoding is used, plus the read/delete limitation. It does not state auth requirements, the actual size ceiling, or the non-idempotent consequence of repeat uploads, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then constraints, then non-capabilities. Every clause carries information; nothing is redundant.

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 no explanation, and the write/safety profile is reasonably covered. However, for a 6-parameter tool with zero schema coverage and no enum hints, the description leaves the agent unable to determine valid parent_type values or payload size limits.

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% and there are 6 parameters, so the description must carry the load. It only loosely gestures at filename and base64 content and never explains parent_type's accepted values, parent_id semantics, mime_type defaults, or the notes field, leaving most parameters undocumented in both places.

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+resource ('Upload one explicitly supplied base64 attachment') scoped to 'a supported Snipe-IT parent'. It also separates itself from the sibling files_read by declaring 'This tool cannot read or delete attachments', so an agent can route without opening a schema.

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 'one explicitly supplied base64 attachment' phrasing tells the agent this is for an already-obtained payload rather than fetching content, and the read/delete exclusion implicitly routes those needs to files_read. It stops short of naming the alternative tool or stating prerequisites (permissions, valid parent types).

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