remarkable_upload

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

The description adds important behavioral context beyond annotations: it notes transport-specific behaviors (parent_folder/document_name ignored in USB web) and the requirement for write mode. This complements readOnlyHint=false.

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 well-structured with XML tags for usecase, instructions, parameters, and examples. It is front-loaded with the key purpose and every sentence adds value. No waste.

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 (three transports, multiple parameters with conditional behavior), the description is complete. It covers formats, transport modes, parameter behavior, and requirements. Output schema exists so return values are not needed.

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 0% schema coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: file_path (absolute path, supported formats), parent_folder (default '/', honored in cloud/SSH, ignored in USB web), document_name (default filename without extension, honored in cloud/SSH, ignored in USB web). This adds significant meaning.

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 'Upload a PDF or EPUB file to the reMarkable tablet.' It specifies the verb (upload), resource (file to tablet), and format restrictions. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like remarkable_read or remarkable_delete.

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 includes a use case and instructions that explain when to use this tool (uploading local files, only PDF/EPUB, works in three transports) and mentions that it requires write mode. It does not explicitly say when not to use or provide alternatives, but the context is clear.

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