upload_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does excellently: it discloses the endpoint, upload-from-URL behavior, return payload structure, size limit, allowed file types (including SVG prohibition), and HTTP 402 error on quota exhaustion. This goes well beyond basic parameters.

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 dense yet efficient, front-loading the core purpose in the first sentence, then parameter usage, return value, downstream usage, and constraints. Every sentence adds value, and it is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

Despite no annotations or output schema, the description is self-contained: it explains the returned fields, how to use the URL in SEND_MESSAGE and SEND_PHOTO, file type restrictions, and error behavior. This is a complete picture for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The schema already has 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond schema: it clarifies that path and url are mutually exclusive (OR), and it provides allowed types and size limits that constrain parameter values.

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: 'Загрузить файл в библиотеку /bots/files ... и получить публичный URL для вставки в сценарий.' It specifies the verb (upload), resource, endpoint, and intended outcome, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_files and delete_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 provides clear usage context: when to use (to upload a file and get a URL for scenarios) and how to pass parameters (path OR url). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it earns 4 rather than 5.

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