lithtrix_blob_upload

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is an upload operation that decodes base64, requires API key, and is subject to size limits. However, it lacks detail about the response format, side effects (e.g., whether it creates or overwrites), and error conditions. This is a moderate disclosure.

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 three sentences, each adding distinct value: purpose, decoding explanation, alternative for large files and requirements. No fluff, front-loaded with key action.

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 output schema, the description omits return value info (e.g., blob ID or URL). It covers main points but leaves a gap in what the agent can expect as a response. The mention of limits is useful. Somewhat complete but could be improved.

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?

Input schema has 3 parameters with 100% description coverage. The description adds value by explaining base64 decoding and mentioning the raw body + Content-Type, which relates to the content_type parameter. It also references storage limits, though not explicitly tied to parameters. This supplements the schema well.

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 action: 'Upload binary bytes via PUT /v1/blobs', specifying verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like lithtrix_blob_delete, lithtrix_blob_download, etc., which are different operations.

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 guidance: 'For large files prefer direct HTTP multipart/raw PUT', hinting at an alternative approach for efficiency. It also mentions requirements like API key and subject to limits. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools (none are upload-focused) or state when not to use this tool.

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