upload_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the return of a file token but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as file size limits, required permissions, whether it modifies state, error handling, or dependencies on other tools. The description is minimal.

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 a single sentence that conveys the essential information without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and every word adds value.

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 is simple (one parameter, no nested objects) and has an output schema (though not shown). The description covers the basic action and return value, but lacks details that would help an agent fully understand the tool's role, such as typical file types, relationship to other tools (e.g., 'create_file_upload'), or that the returned token is likely used in subsequent API calls.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage, describing the 'filePath' parameter as 'Local file path to upload to Tripo'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate. There is no elaboration on path format, allowed extensions, or constraints.

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 action ('Upload a local file'), target ('to Tripo'), and outcome ('return a reusable file token'). It uses a specific verb and resource, making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling 'create_file_upload', which might have a similar function.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites (e.g., file must exist, supported formats), or exclusions. The description simply states what it does without contextual advice.

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