upload_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral details on its own. It adds one useful prerequisite (local_path must already exist), but it does not mention what happens when the file does not exist, whether remote_path is a file path or directory, whether uploads overwrite existing files, or any permission or response behavior. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 concise and front-loaded with the main operation. It uses two clear sentences, provides a practical example, and contains no fluff. Every sentence contributes value, making it an appropriate and efficient description.

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 tool with no annotations and an output schema (but no parameter descriptions), the description should cover the essential usage context. It omits remote_path semantics, which is critical for correct invocation. While the output schema may explain return values, the description lacks enough context about how to properly perform a single-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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains local_path with a clear example, but remote_path is not described at all. This leaves a required parameter semantically ambiguous, so the description only partially compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 function: '将本机单个文件上传到坚果云' (upload a single local file to Jianguo Cloud). It specifies the verb (upload), resource (local file), and destination (cloud), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like upload_dir by explicitly limiting to a single file.

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 implies usage for single-file uploads and notes that local_path must be an existing file, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like upload_dir or how it differs from download tools. There are no clear exclusions or alternative recommendations, so guidance is only implied.

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