grocy_files_put

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, idempotent=true and destructive=false, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real context by disclosing the octet-stream payload format, the endpoint path, and the dry-run gate. It does not mention permissions, whether an existing file with the same name is overwritten, or the size ceiling that the schema enforces.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and payload type, with no filler. Each sentence contributes either format, endpoint, or a calling rule.

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?

A write tool with no output schema that nevertheless explains payload encoding and the confirmation/dry-run protocol, so an agent can call it correctly. The main remaining gap is overwrite/conflict behavior for an idempotent PUT, which matters for a file upload.

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 only 25% (only 'confirm' is documented), so the description needs to compensate. It clarifies content_base64 as 'the file bytes', which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about the five enum values for group, the 200-char file_name limit, or the 750k base64 cap, and its dry-run note duplicates the schema text.

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 (upload a file) plus the exact endpoint and content type, which immediately separates it from the sibling read/delete file tools (grocy_files_get, grocy_files_delete). An agent can identify the tool without opening the schema.

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 'Omit confirm for a dry-run' sentence gives a usable calling convention, but there is no guidance on when to prefer this tool over siblings or when not to upload (e.g., duplicates, overwriting existing files). Usage is implied rather than framed against alternatives.

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