Import an uploaded file into an allowlisted project

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true. The description adds constraints on source and destination but does not disclose failure behavior (e.g., if overwrite=false and file exists) or further side effects beyond the copy operation.

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, no redundancy, front-loaded with key information. Efficient and clear.

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 6 parameters, annotations, and no output schema, the description covers core purpose and constraints but lacks details on optional parameters and error handling. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 50%. The description adds context for source_file and destination (constraints), but does not explain overwrite, createParents, or expectedSha256 parameters. It partially compensates but leaves gaps.

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 copies an uploaded file into a project without Base64 conversion, distinguishing it from sibling tools like write_file that write content directly. However, it could be more explicit about when to use this vs other file 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 gives context by specifying source must be from an approved mounted-file root and destination restricted to project root, implying when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like write_file.

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