Upload a file to DOS

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the prerequisite about peer write permissions and the bounded nature of the upload. It does not describe additional side effects (e.g., default no-overwrite behavior) but does not contradict annotations.

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 sentence of 11 words, front-loaded with the verb and object, and every word adds value. No redundancy or filler.

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?

Although annotations and an output schema exist, the description leaves ambiguities: the meaning of 'bounded' (not explicitly linked to the schema's maxLength), the reference to 'peers,' the role of the 'target' parameter, and the default overwrite behavior. These gaps make the description incomplete for fully autonomous use.

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 schema provides descriptions for 3 of 4 parameters (path, overwrite, content_base64), covering the required ones. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning, and the optional 'target' parameter has no schema description nor is clarified in the tool description. With 75% schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Upload one bounded binary file' with a specific resource and target (DOS), and adds scope constraints ('bounded', 'when writes are enabled at both peers'). It distinguishes from the sibling tool dos.download_file by the upload verb.

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 a clear usage condition: 'when writes are enabled at both peers.' This implies when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is clear and free of misleading directions.

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