Put a file

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses two meaningful behaviors: files appear in the device app directory and are delivered on the next sync (asynchronous delivery). It does not mention overwrite behavior, idempotency, failure cases, or any authentication prerequisites, which would strengthen transparency for an upload operation.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler. The primary action and path semantics are front-loaded, and the content-mode and sync-timing details follow in a logical, compact order. Every sentence earns its place.

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 fairly simple upload tool with four well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient. It covers path meaning, content encoding choices, and delivery timing. The only gap is what happens on conflict or failure (e.g., whether existing files are overwritten), which would make it fully complete.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the schema by saying 'text as content or binary as content_base64' and clarifies that path is relative to the app directory, but it adds little beyond what the schema already documents for each parameter.

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 opens with a specific verb and object ('Upload a file') and immediately clarifies the path semantics as 'relative, as it will appear in the device app directory.' This distinguishes it from siblings like get_file, delete_file, and put_file_from_url, which are separate operations or input channels.

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 practical context: when you have local text or binary content Encoder, you pass content or content_base64, and the file is picked up on next sync. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g., put_file_from_url) or state when not to use this tool, leaving some selection inference to the agent.

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