Upload a file to Yorai

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

With no annotations, the description does real work: per-media size caps, video duration bounds, accepted MIME types, and the key behavioral fact that a URL is fetched server-side while a path resolves on the MCP host machine. It omits auth needs, dedup/overwrite behavior, and failure modes, keeping it short of a 5.

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, both front-loaded with the decision-relevant information (what's accepted, then how to supply it). No filler and no restatement of the name or title.

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?

Covers the return value (file ID) despite no output schema, plus all format and size gates an agent needs to avoid a failed call. The unexplained filename parameter and the absence of any error or auth behavior are the only real gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does for the two decision-critical parameters: url is a public https URL the server downloads, path is local to the MCP server host. The third parameter, filename, is never explained, so the agent must guess its purpose.

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?

Names a specific verb (upload) and resource (file) and states exactly what comes back — a file ID usable as job input. The supported media classes and constraints make it unmistakable against siblings like yorai_download_file or yorai_create_job.

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?

"and get a file ID for job inputs" implicitly positions it as a precursor to create_job, and the second sentence tells the agent it must supply either a URL or a local path. There is no explicit when-not or named alternative, but with only one sibling in the opposite direction (download) the routing risk is low.

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