Upload an object to Scaleway Object Storage

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

The description details behavioral traits beyond annotations: it can overwrite existing objects ('Upload (or overwrite)'), has a non-obvious binary encoding requirement ('base64-encode first'), and states idempotency (overwrite) aligning with the idempotentHint annotation. The size cap and single-part limitation add useful context. However, it does not mention whether bucket permissions are needed or if the operation affects bucket metadata. With idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, the description adds meaningful behavioral details.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose ('Upload (or overwrite) a single object'), followed by a critical constraint (size ceiling and encoding). Every sentence earns its place with no waste, and the structure prioritizes essential information before details.

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 6 parameters (all well-documented in schema), the rich annotations (idempotent, not read-only, not destructive), and no output schema, the description is fully complete. It explains the single-part constraint, size limit, and encoding requirement—all critical for usage. No gaps are evident for this tool's complexity and provided schema/annotations.

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 parameters well. The description adds value by explaining the 'content' field's size ceiling and encoding requirement, and by reaffirming the default region. It goes beyond the schema by highlighting the max size limit and encoding setup, which are critical for correct usage. A 4 is appropriate because it enhances understanding without being redundant.

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 'Upload (or overwrite) a single object' with a specific verb ('Upload') and resource ('object to Scaleway Object Storage'). It distinguishes itself from other S3 tools like scaleway_s3_delete_object and scaleway_s3_copy_object. The mention of 'single-part only' and the reference to sibling tools suitable for larger uploads further differentiates its scope.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('single-part only') and when not to: it mentions a size ceiling (MAX_PUT_OBJECT_BYTES, default 5 MB) and that 'multipart/large-file upload is out of scope; use the console or scw CLI for anything larger.' This provides clear boundaries and alternatives, helping the agent make appropriate decisions.

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