liara_upload_object

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Upload an object to a bucket', which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether it overwrites existing objects, rate limits, error conditions, or response format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap, scoring a 2.

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: 'Upload an object to a bucket'. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, with zero wasted words. This is appropriately sized for a straightforward tool, earning a 5 for optimal conciseness.

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 tool's complexity (a mutation operation with 3 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like permissions, overwrite behavior, or response details, which are crucial for safe usage. With no structured fields to compensate, this scores a 2 for inadequate completeness.

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%, with clear descriptions for all 3 parameters: bucketName, objectKey, and filePath. The description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., no details on path formats or constraints). With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Upload an object to a bucket' clearly states the action (upload) and target resource (object to bucket), which is specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'liara_create_bucket' or 'liara_delete_object', but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'liara_upload_source', which might be similar. This earns a 4 for clear purpose without explicit sibling differentiation.

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 to choose this over other upload tools like 'liara_upload_source', or any constraints. With no usage context provided, this scores a 2 for lack of guidance.

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