upload_file

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It states the core action and the output contract (a URL accepted by transcribe), which is useful. Yet it omits details such as whether uploading is synchronous, how long the URL remains valid, any authentication/privacy implications, or how oversized files are refused—though the latter is captured in the schema's max_size_mb field. The description is not misleading, but it is thin on behavioral context.

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?

One sentence, direct, front-loaded, and free of filler. Every word contributes: 'Upload' is the action, 'local audio or video file' is the input, and 'URL that transcribe accepts' provides the output and integration context.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate for a simple upload. It explains the essential purpose and the output shape. However, it lacks information on error conditions, the exact response format beyond 'a URL', and any prerequisites or side effects such as file persistence or cleanup. Given the schema covers parameters, this is acceptable but not fully complete.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond noting the file is local and audio/video, which mirrors the schema's file_path description. It does not clarify max_size_mb's default or limits beyond what the schema already states.

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 clearly identifies the tool's function: uploading a local audio or video file and returning a URL for downstream use. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by framing the output as the input for transcribe, making its role in the workflow explicit.

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 phrase 'URL that transcribe accepts' establishes when to use this tool: when a user needs to make a local file available for transcription. It implicitly positions this as the upload step before transcribe, and none of the sibling tools overlap with this action. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative approaches.

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