linkding_upload_asset

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

Annotations only mark this as a non-idempotent, non-destructive write. The description adds real value by explaining the two-phase confirm/dry-run pattern and what the dry-run returns (file name and size), which is not in the annotations. It doesn't note that repeat uploads create additional assets (relevant to idempotentHint=false).

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?

Three short sentences: purpose first, endpoint second, safety pattern third. No filler; every clause carries information.

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 three-parameter write with no output schema, the purpose, endpoint, wire format, and dry-run behavior are covered. The main missing piece is post-upload result/duplicate behavior, which is minor.

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 the schema already documents confirm, file_path and bookmark_id in detail. The description adds only the multipart wire format ('field file'), a minor supplement.

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 object ('Upload a local file as a bookmark asset') plus the exact endpoint, so it is clearly distinct from create_bookmark, list_assets and download_asset.

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 dry-run rule ('Omit confirm for a dry-run that names the file and its size') gives concrete guidance on the two invocation modes. It doesn't contrast with siblings such as create_bookmark, but the upload action is unambiguous.

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