upload_file

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, implying a write operation, but the description adds no further behavioral details (e.g., file existence requirements, element constraints, side effects). The input schema partially compensates with parameter descriptions, but the tool description itself is silent on behavior beyond 'upload'.

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 a single sentence with no redundancy, front-loading the core action. However, it is minimal and could benefit from slightly more structure (e.g., listing key constraints). It is concise but not overly so.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema and the complexity of file upload (involving element identification and local path), the description is too sparse. It does not mention expected outcomes, error scenarios, or return values, leaving the agent underinformed.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains each parameter fully. The tool description adds no additional meaning to the parameters, thus baseline score of 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 states 'Upload a file through a provided element,' which clearly indicates the action and resource. However, it could be more specific (e.g., what type of element) and does not differentiate from sibling tools like fill or click, though no other tool explicitly uploads files.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as fill for form fields or click for buttons. The description lacks context for proper tool selection.

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