upload_to_sas

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

Annotations already communicate non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context about the transfer-directory constraint and the SAS connection, but does not disclose overwrite behavior, collision handling, or failure modes. With annotations present, the bar is lower, and the description provides reasonable but not rich extra context.

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?

Two sentences with no filler: the first states the operation, the second states the boundary and fallback. The key constraint is front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place.

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 description covers the source constraint and the transfer direction, and an output schema is present. However, it omits important operational details such as remote_path format, what overwrite=true actually does, and what happens on failure, leaving an agent to guess in realistic scenarios.

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 0%, so the description must carry the burden of explaining parameters. It clarifies that local_name refers to a file in the transfer directory, but remote_path and overwrite semantics are not addressed at all. The schema only provides names and a default, which is insufficient for reliable invocation.

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—'Send a file from this server's transfer directory to the SAS server's filesystem'—with clear directionality, source, and destination. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like download_from_sas by making the upload direction explicit.

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 and a hard precondition: only files already in the transfer directory can be sent, and other files must be copied there first. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the constraint and fallback instruction effectively guide an agent on when this tool applies.

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