Upload File

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, which already signal a non-read, non-destructive, non-idempotent operation. The description adds context about file path accessibility ('Must be readable by the MCP server process') and the mutual exclusivity constraint, which goes beyond annotations. However, it doesn't disclose potential side effects like overwriting existing files or size limits, but given the annotations cover the basic safety profile, this is adequate.

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 concise and well-structured, with two sentences that front-load the core purpose and then detail the parameter usage. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy or fluff.

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's moderate complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is complete enough. It covers the key usage scenarios and constraints. The lack of output schema means the description doesn't need to explain return values, and the annotations provide the safety profile. Minor gaps like file size limits or error handling are not critical for a basic upload tool.

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 schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds value by explaining the relationship between parameters (mutual exclusivity, fileName derivation, contentType auto-detection), which is not fully captured in the schema. However, since the schema already provides detailed descriptions, the incremental value is moderate, warranting a baseline 3.

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 states the tool's purpose: 'Upload a file to Lexware.' It specifies the two mutually exclusive input methods (filePath or contentBase64) and distinguishes it from sibling tools like lexware_download_file and lexware_upload_voucher_file by focusing on generic file 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 provides explicit usage guidance: it explains when to use filePath vs contentBase64, notes that fileName is optional with filePath but required with contentBase64, and mentions auto-detection of contentType for common image extensions. It also implicitly distinguishes from lexware_upload_voucher_file by focusing on generic file upload.

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