pm_upload_project_file

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions the HTTP method and data format but omits critical details like whether the upload creates a new file or overwrites existing ones, authentication requirements, size limits, and error handling.

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 extremely short, but it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity. It does not earn its place because it fails to convey essential information needed for correct tool use.

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 has 7 parameters, an output schema, and many siblings, the description is woefully incomplete. It does not explain return values, required vs optional parameters, or the purpose of fields like kind or description_md.

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%, yet the description adds no meaning beyond the parameter names already in the schema. It mentions 'file bytes as standard base64' but does not map to the parameter 'file_content_base64' or explain optional parameters like kind, name, or description_md.

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 states 'upload' and references a project file, which gives a basic sense of the action and resource, but it is vague and does not differentiate from sibling tools like pm_update_project_file or pm_download_project_file. It lacks specificity about the operation being a creation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as pm_update_project_file or pm_list_project_files. There are no prerequisites, context, or exclusion criteria mentioned.

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