stage_inputs

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states that it uploads and returns a URI, without explaining side effects (e.g., whether the upload is persistent, overwrites, or requires authentication). The meaning of 'once' is ambiguous, and no details about the tapis:// URI's lifespan or format are provided.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. Every word contributes to stating the core purpose and output, making it highly concise and easy to parse.

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 tool has two parameters, no annotations, and an output schema that the description does not explain, the description is incomplete. It omits crucial context about the expected local folder structure, the meaning of app_id, the URI returned, and any side effects or prerequisites, which is inadequate for an agent to use it confidently.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It clarifies 'local_dir' as the local folder, but completely ignores 'app_id'. The description does not explain how the two parameters interact or what the default 'python-s3' app means, leaving users to guess.

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 action ('Upload a local folder'), the resource (local folder), and the outcome ('return the tapis:// URI to run from'). This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like submit_job or get_results, making it immediately recognizable as a staging operation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions, and does not reference any sibling tools. The phrase 'once' hints at a one-time operation but lacks practical context.

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