sleeper_upload

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the base64-only constraint and the 1 MiB JSON request limit, which are non-obvious operational traits. However it omits what happens to existing input contents and whether change/input events fire after upload.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by the two hard constraints. No wasted words.

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 4-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the format and size limit but leaves selector semantics and the nested file structure unexplained. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 only 25% (only 'profile' is documented). The description clarifies that content must be base64 but says nothing about what 'selector' targets, the per-file name/mime_type fields, or 'tab' semantics, leaving most parameters undocumented in both schema and description.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: uploads explicit base64 file contents to an input. It is clearly distinct from read/click/type siblings, but it does not explicitly name how it differs from related tools like sleeper_fill_form.

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 gives a format constraint (base64 only, native paths unsupported) but no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no comparison to alternative tools for populating inputs. The agent must infer usage context.

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