upload_object

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the two upload modes and default behavior for object_key. However, it does not mention mandatory behavior (e.g., exactly one source required), file size limits, overwrite policy, or error handling.

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?

Description is extremely concise with only two short sentences plus a bullet list. Every sentence adds unique value. No fluff, front-loaded with the main verb and resource.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description provides adequate context for a file upload tool. It explains the two input modes, optional parameters, and default key selection. Minor gaps: no mention of return value or success signal, but the essential behavior is covered.

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 baseline is 3. Description adds context about default object_key and the two source scenarios, but does not go beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. No additional semantic value for parameters like bucket_name or what 'override' means.

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?

Description clearly states verb 'Upload a file' to a specific resource 'connected S3 bucket'. Distinguishes from sibling tools (list_objects, read_object, connect_s3) by focusing on writing. Two distinct source types (local file, internet URL) are explicitly listed.

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?

Description explains when to use each source (local_file_path vs source_url) and mentions optional bucket_name override. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or when to alternate with siblings, but the purpose is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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