upload_expansion_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It explicitly says the tool uploads to a new edit and commits it, signaling a write/mutation operation, and notes it is disabled in read-only mode. It does not mention permissions, quotas, or whether it replaces an existing expansion file, but core behavior is disclosed.

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 short sentences: the first states the action, object, and effect; the second adds an important operational constraint. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler.

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 moderately complex upload tool with well-documented parameters and an output schema, the description provides enough context for an agent to select and invoke it correctly. It does not cover edge behaviors like replacing an existing edit or the exact composition of the output, but the clear operation and sibling contrasts fill most gaps.

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%, with each parameter already clearly described (local path, package name, version code, expansion file type). The description adds no extra parameter-level semantics beyond identifying the file type as OBB, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific action ('Upload'), the exact resource ('APK expansion file (OBB)'), and the operational effect ('to a new edit and commit it'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling upload tools like upload_apk, upload_bundle, and upload_deobfuscation_file.

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 gives clear context: use this tool to upload OBB expansion files, not APKs, bundles, or deobfuscation files. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the file-type qualifier and the sibling tool list make the intended use obvious.

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