tc_upload_new_version

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

While annotations already mark the tool as destructive and non-read-only, the description adds valuable behavioral context: the existing file keeps its history, the new content becomes the latest revision, and confirm acts as a safety gate. It also explains the consequence of a name mismatch, going beyond what annotations provide.

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-structured with an introductory sentence, key behavioral notes, an arg list, and return shape. Every sentence adds value, and the arg list directly maps to schema properties without unnecessary verbosity.

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 description covers the essential aspects: purpose, prerequisites, behavior, parameter semantics, and return value. It also highlights the most likely mistake (name mismatch) and the safety gate. Given the output schema exists, the description is sufficiently complete for correct tool selection and invocation.

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 schema has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), so the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter's role. It clarifies that 'name' defaults to the local file name and must match exactly, and that 'confirm' must be true. This is essential for correct invocation.

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 tool uploads a file as a NEW VERSION of an existing file, differentiating it from merely uploading a new file (tc_upload_file). It specifies the resource (existing file in a folder) and the action (upload new content as latest revision).

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 provides explicit prerequisites (TC_ENABLE_WRITE=1, confirm=true) and a critical caveat (name must match exactly or a new file is created). It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the use case for versioning is clearly implied, making it easy for an agent to select this over a plain upload.

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