Upload Data

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the 500MB cap, the supported format set, the silent 250 Hz fallback that mis-times epochs/filters/spectral features, and that format overrides extension detection. It omits auth/permission requirements and whether an upload overwrites or versions an existing dataset.

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 short paragraphs, front-loaded with the action and constraints, then the parameter warning. Every sentence adds information an agent needs; nothing is restated from the schema 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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary, and the description still tells the agent the practical result is a registered path usable as a custom_data node. Only the dataset_name parameter and any auth/overwrite behavior are left uncovered.

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 largely does: it enumerates the format values, explains sampling_rate's unit and silent-default hazard, and implies file_path is the local file to send. dataset_name is never mentioned, leaving one of four parameters undocumented in both places.

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?

States a specific verb (upload) and resource (EEG file), names the accepted extensions and size cap, and states the outcome: a registered path for a custom_data node. No sibling tool uploads files, so the purpose is unambiguous against the list.

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?

Gives a clear conditional rule for when sampling_rate is required (plain CSV/TSV/TXT without embedded metadata) and when format should be used (to override extension detection). It does not say when not to use this tool or name an alternative path, but the operational guidance for the risky parameter is explicit.

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