upload_file_to_storage

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behavioral traits: the tool performs a write operation (upload), returns a unique file ID, has a 4GB file size limit, supports specific file formats, and includes HTTP response codes (201, 400, 404) for success and error cases. It doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or idempotency, but covers essential operational details.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and key constraints (file formats, size limit), but becomes verbose with parameter documentation that repeats schema-like details. The HTTP return codes section is somewhat redundant for a tool description. While informative, it could be more streamlined by focusing on high-level semantics rather than replicating parameter validation rules.

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 complexity (5 required parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description provides substantial context: purpose, usage scenarios, file constraints, parameter semantics, and response codes. It adequately covers what the tool does and how to use it, though it could benefit from more explicit error handling guidance or examples of typical workflows.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides detailed semantic information for all 5 parameters: 'payload' (path to file), 'name' (file name with extension), 'description' (to distinguish app), 'tags' (optional, comma-separated, with character and length constraints), and 'project_name' (optional, with creation behavior and naming rules). This adds significant value beyond the bare schema, though some parameter details like 'payload' vs 'file_path' naming mismatch could cause confusion.

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 tool's purpose: 'Uploads an app file to Sauce Storage for the purpose of mobile app testing or generic files to be used as Pre-Run Executables and returns a unique file ID assigned to the uploaded file.' It specifies the verb (uploads), resource (app file to Sauce Storage), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_storage_files (which retrieves files) by focusing on upload functionality. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other potential upload tools if they existed.

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 some implied usage context by mentioning the purpose (mobile app testing, Pre-Run Executables) and supported file formats (APK, AAB, IPA, ZIP, or any other format). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., no comparison to other upload methods or sibling tools), and doesn't specify prerequisites or exclusions beyond file size limits.

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