upload-files

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and discloses important behavioral constraints: max 10 files per call, 100 MB per file, required filename for base64, MIME auto-detection, and the exact return shape. It does not mention side effects like storage consumption or duplicate handling, but the core behavior is well covered.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose, and the following sentences efficiently cover constraints, parameter nuances, and return value. Every sentence carries useful information without redundancy.

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 lacking an output schema, the description explicitly provides the return format, limits, and input modes, making the tool fully usable. The minor absence of duplicate-handling details is mitigated by the schema's default value description, so the overall context is complete.

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?

Although the schema already describes all parameters (100% coverage), the description adds practical meaning beyond the schema: it explains the optional data: prefix, clarifies mutual exclusivity of path and content_base64, and emphasizes that filename is required for base64 entries. This adds real value over the raw schema.

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 opens with a clear, specific verb and resource: 'Upload one or more files to the syntx.ai account.' It also distinguishes itself from siblings like list-uploaded-files and delete-file by focusing on the creation/upload action.

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 clearly explains two mutually exclusive input modes (path vs content_base64) and their requirements, which guides correct usage. It does not explicitly compare to sibling tools, but the upload action is distinct and unambiguous, so no alternative guidance is necessary.

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