upload_deobfuscation_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the tool is disabled in read-only mode, indicating a write operation, but does not detail other behavioral aspects like whether existing files are overwritten, authentication requirements, or error handling. The single disclosure about read-only mode is useful but limited.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences. The first sentence states the primary purpose, and the second adds a critical usage constraint. There is no redundant or extra information, making it efficient and front-loaded.

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?

The tool is a simple upload operation with an output schema present, so return values are covered. The description adequately defines the scope of the tool and includes a key constraint (read-only mode). It lacks some context about file size limits or exact file formats, but given the simplicity and schema coverage, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand and invoke the 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?

The input schema already provides full descriptions for all four parameters (100% coverage). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema offers, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate. It does not clarify formats, constraints, or relationships between parameters.

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 uploads a deobfuscation file, specifying it can be either a ProGuard mapping or native symbols file. This directly distinguishes it from sibling upload tools like upload_apk, upload_bundle, and upload_image by naming the resource type.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does mention the tool is disabled in read-only mode, which is a usage constraint, but does not state when to prefer this over other upload tools or any prerequisites, such as needing to have the mapping file locally.

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