Upload a Micro file

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

Annotations already disclose that this is a write operation, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description goes beyond annotations by characterizing the result as a 'stable storage resource' and highlighting that access can be public or entitlement-gated, which adds useful behavioral context about the outcome and access control.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence states the action and the key access-control choice without filler. Every phrase contributes information, and the description is easy to scan and parse.

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 has 5 parameters, an output schema, and annotations that cover safety traits, so the description does not need to explain return values. However, the description is still incomplete because the critical 'source' parameter is not explained and no routing guidance is provided. It is minimally viable for a simple upload, but not fully complete.

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 only 20% (only 'path' has a description), so the description must compensate. It only indirectly explains 'public' and 'entitlement' through the phrase 'public or entitlement-gated access', while leaving 'id', 'source', and 'path' poorly explained. Most critically, 'source' is ambiguous—it could be a file path, URL, or content—and the description does not clarify it.

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 uses a specific verb ('Upload') and a specific resource ('one explicit file as a stable storage resource'), and clarifies the access modes ('public or entitlement-gated access'). The verb 'Upload' also differentiates it from the sibling tools, including 'micro_files', which presumably lists files rather than creating them.

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 some usage context by specifying that exactly one file is uploaded and that access can be public or entitlement-gated. However, it does not state when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions, prerequisites, or when not to use it. Usage guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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