uploadFile

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Upload') but doesn't mention whether this is a safe operation, what permissions are required, whether it's idempotent, or what happens on 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, clear sentence that efficiently communicates the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the essential action and target, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly. Every word earns its place in this concise statement.

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?

For a file upload tool with 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens after upload (e.g., returns a file ID), error conditions, authentication requirements, or how it differs from sibling tools. The context signals indicate high complexity that the description doesn't adequately address.

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 description provides no parameter information beyond what's already in the schema, which has 100% coverage. Parameters like 'fileData', 'fileUrl', and their mutual exclusivity are documented in the schema descriptions, so the description adds no additional semantic value. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate schema coverage without description enhancement.

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 target resource ('a file to Directus'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'createItem' or 'updateItem' which might also handle file creation, leaving some ambiguity about when this specific upload tool should be used versus those alternatives.

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 like 'createItem' or 'updateItem', which could potentially handle file operations. The description lacks context about prerequisites, such as authentication needs or when file uploads are appropriate in the Directus workflow, leaving the agent to infer usage scenarios.

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