POST /hardware/{id}/files

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the write semantics are covered. On top of that the description discloses a non-obvious failure mode: the vendored spec declares JSON but Snipe-IT expects multipart/form-data, so every call fails. That is exactly the behavioral context an agent cannot derive from structured fields.

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?

Roughly four sentences with no filler, and the operative do-not-use warning arrives early. Minor waste: 'See below for details' points at nothing, and the payload-shape note is split between the first and third sentence.

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 three-parameter write with no output schema, the description answers the questions that matter: what it does, why it will fail here, and what to do instead. It doesn't cover response shape or whether an asset must exist first, but those are secondary given the tool is effectively unusable.

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 coverage is 67% and the description adds the array form (`file[]`) for multiple uploads, which the schema does not indicate. However, that also conflicts with the schema, which declares `file` as a plain string, and the `confirm` gate is left to the schema. The added detail is real but partly contradictory.

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 verb and resource (upload files to an asset at POST /hardware/{id}/files) and implicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like snipeit_gen_hardware_list_files and snipeit_gen_hardwareidfilesfile_id. It doesn't explicitly name those siblings, so the differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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?

It gives a strong negative guideline: do not use this tool, upload via the Snipe-IT web UI because multipart/form-data is required. It stops short of naming in-server alternatives such as snipeit_raw_request, which would be the natural fallback when a caller controls content-type.

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