upload_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure and does well: it reveals that file_path reads from the server's disk, handles binary untouched, can be disabled via ALLOW_LOCAL_FILE_UPLOAD=false, and that without parent_folder_uri files land unfiled in the caller's context. It does not mention overwrite behavior or auth needs, but the disclosure is substantial.

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 longer than a simple sentence, but the bulleted structure and bold 'exactly one' make it scannable. Every sentence adds value, covering three content mechanisms and folder behavior, so it is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 input modes, optional folder placement) and the presence of an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains the main behaviors and context needed for decision-making, though it could optionally mention authentication or response format, but those are not required with the output schema present.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds significant semantics: it explains the distinction between content (text-only), file_path (server reads from disk, binary-safe), and url (binary-safe), and clarifies why parent_folder_uri matters for folder-scoped consumers. This goes beyond the schema descriptions.

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 it uploads a file to the Viya Files Service, optionally into a Content folder. This specific verb+resource distinguishes it from siblings like upload_data and upload_inline_data, which are likely for different storage targets.

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 clear context on how to use the tool (exactly one of content/file_path/url, and use parent_folder_uri for folder-scoped consumers). It does not explicitly name alternative tools like upload_data or upload_inline_data, but the guidance on when parent_folder_uri is needed is helpful.

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