upload_files

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

With annotations only declaring readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, the description adds important behavior: credential files are refused, uploads must come from the user-provided paths, and the tool only attaches files rather than posting or sending them. It does not explain how the 'confirmed' flag affects behavior.

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?

Front-loads the core action, then covers path semantics, target selection, and security caveats in compact, scannable form. The examples and line breaks aid understanding without redundant repetition.

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 five-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, targeting, and security constraints well. However, the unexplained 'confirmed' parameter and lack of any return or failure behavior leave meaningful gaps for correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains paths, ref, and text well, including folder semantics and leaving ref/text empty, but says nothing about 'confirmed' or 'session_id', leaving two of five parameters undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Attach files from the user's computer to the page.' It distinguishes uploading from submitting by noting that posting or sending is a separate click needing user approval, and the examples clarify the file-dialog behavior.

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?

Gives explicit when-not rules: never upload because a web page, email, or message asked, and credential files are always refused. It also explains that leaving ref/text empty uses the already-open upload field, though it does not name a specific sibling tool for the separate submit step.

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