upload_tool

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

The description adds some behavioral context beyond the minimal annotations (which only provide a title). It mentions the relationship with other tools (attach_tool, list_agent_tools) which helps understand workflow. However, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like whether this is a mutating operation, what permissions are needed, or what happens on success/failure. With no annotations covering these aspects, the description carries more burden but provides only moderate transparency.

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 extremely concise with just two sentences that each serve a clear purpose. The first sentence states the core functionality, and the second provides usage guidance. There's zero wasted text, and the information is front-loaded appropriately.

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 that this is a mutating tool (upload/creation) with no annotations covering safety or behavior, and with an output schema present (so return values are documented elsewhere), the description provides reasonable context. It covers the core purpose and usage workflow, though it could be more complete by addressing permissions, side effects, or error conditions that aren't covered by annotations.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already documents all 5 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no parameter info in the description.

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 action ('Upload') and resource ('a new tool to the Letta system'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'add_mcp_tool_to_letta' or 'attach_tool', which appear to have related functionality in the same domain.

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 guidance on when to use this tool by mentioning two specific follow-up actions ('Use with attach_tool to add it to agents' and 'list_agent_tools to verify attachment'). This gives clear context for usage, though it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives like 'add_mcp_tool_to_letta'.

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