upload_group_file

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, but it only states the action itself. It does not reveal side effects, overwrite behavior, file size limits, permission requirements, or what happens on success/failure. This is a meaningful transparency gap for a tool that mutates group state.

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 short and free of filler, which is structurally clean status quo, but it is also under-specified as a definition. It is more of a title than a descriptive sentence, so it does not quite earn the top conciseness marks for providing a complete, front-loaded explanation.

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?

The definition is incomplete for an upload operation with four parameters and no output schema. It does not explain how the optional folder_id affects behavior, what kind of file path is expected, or what the agent should expect as a result. Given the lack of annotations agonist, the sparse description leaves too much unstated.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for its four parameters, so the schema already explains file, name, group_id, and folder_id. The description adds no additional parameter context, but the schema covers the bare semantics, warranting the baseline score.

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 identifies the action ('Upload') and the resource ('group file'), making it easy to tell apart from sibling tools like delete_group_file or get_group_file_url. It lacks some useful scope detail, such as whether the file goes to the group root or a subfolder, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool over alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The agent must infer the usage solely from the tool name and the presence of sibling file tools. No mention is made of when upload_group_file is appropriate versus, for example, send_group_msg or get_group_root_files.

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