acc_upload_file

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint=false annotation, the description discloses critical behavior: if the file exists, a new version is added rather than a duplicate, and it mentions chunked S3 upload for large files. This adds value beyond the annotation, though it doesn't cover authentication or error handling.

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 two sentences plus a tip, front-loaded with the primary action and behavior. The versioning detail and large-file note are concise and necessary. No wasted words.

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 an output schema (context signal), so return values need not be described. The description covers crucial behavioral nuances (version vs new doc, chunked upload) and references a prerequisite naming check, making it sufficiently complete for use.

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 100%, so each parameter already has a description. The tool description doesn't add parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, but the versioning behavior clarifies the effect of the 'name' parameter when conflicts occur. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Upload a local file to an ACC Docs folder' and specifies the key behavior of versioning when a file with the same name exists. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like download_file, copy_file, or create_folder.

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 explicit guidance to validate the name against the project naming convention before uploading, referencing acc_validate_names. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool, but the upload context is clear and the tip provides a strong usage recommendation.

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