upload_dataset_text_file

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

Annotations include destructiveHint=true, but the description only says 'Add' and does not clarify whether uploading a filename that already exists overwrites, errors, or creates a duplicate. No side effects, overwrite behavior, or mutation details are disclosed, leaving an important behavioral gap for a tool marked as destructive.

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 compact and front-loaded with the purpose, then gives endpoint context and a tight parameter list. Every sentence earns its place, and the filename example replaces longer prose.

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 simple three-string-parameter upload, the description covers what, how, and the filename convention, and the annotations cover safety. The main missing piece is behavior when an existing caption file shares the same filename, especially given destructiveHint=true.

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 carries the full burden and succeeds. It documents all three parameters, including the critical filename constraint with a concrete example (img_0001.jpg → img_0001.txt), which is essential for correct usage.

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 and resource: 'Add a text file — normally a caption — to a dataset.' It also distinguishes itself by emphasizing inline text uploads 'without hosting a file,' which separates it from the sibling upload_dataset_file_from_url. This is specific, unambiguous, and differentiable.

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 gives a clear use context: write captions inline rather than hosting files. It implies the alternative (hosting a file) without explicitly naming upload_dataset_file_from_url or stating a when-not rule. The guidance is useful but not fully explicit about alternatives.

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