tc_upload_file

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

Annotations indicate a non-idempotent write (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false). The description adds key behavioral details: fails on duplicate file name, requires TC_ENABLE_WRITE=1, and provides a return structure. These go beyond the annotations and help the agent anticipate outcomes.

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 well-organized: purpose sentence, failure note, requirement, args, returns. Every line contributes essential information; there is no redundant repetition of schema titles. While the Args list adds length, it replaces missing schema descriptions, so it earns its place.

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 mutation tool with four parameters and no schema descriptions, the description covers all aspects needed for invocation: when to use, when not to, prerequisites, parameter semantics, and return format. It also contrasts with the closest sibling tool. No critical gaps remain for successful agent 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 has 0% description coverage, so the Args section fully compensates: each parameter is explained with purpose and sources (e.g., folder_id from tc_list_folder/tc_folder_tree). The optional name parameter's default behavior is also specified. This is exemplary compensation for missing schema descriptions.

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?

Clear verb+resource+scope: 'Upload a NEW file from the local disk into a Trimble Connect folder.' Explicitly distinguishes from sibling tc_upload_new_version by noting it fails on duplicate names and directing to that tool for revisions. This leaves no ambiguity about the tool's primary 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?

Directly states when not to use it: if a file with the same name exists, use tc_upload_new_version instead. Also mentions the prerequisite TC_ENABLE_WRITE=1, which is a clear environmental condition for use. No other alternatives are discussed, but the guidance is sufficient.

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