put_object

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Upload text content' which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose critical traits: whether it overwrites existing objects, requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in 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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Upload text content to an S3 object'). It wastes no words and is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity. Every part of the sentence earns its place by conveying essential information without redundancy.

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 complexity (a mutation tool for cloud storage), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like overwrite behavior, error handling, or return values, which are crucial for safe usage. The high schema coverage helps with parameters, but overall context is insufficient for an agent to use this tool confidently.

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 documents all four parameters (bucket, key, content, contentType) with descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining parameter interactions or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting, but no extra value is added.

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 verb ('Upload') and resource ('text content to an S3 object'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_object' (download) and 'delete_object' (remove), though it doesn't explicitly mention the S3 context which siblings imply. The description is specific but could be slightly more precise about the S3 service.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., bucket must exist), when not to use it (e.g., for binary data if limited to text), or refer to sibling tools like 'presigned_url' for alternative upload methods. Usage is implied by the action but lacks explicit context.

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