openai_upload_file

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses a confirmation gate, implying a mutating, persistent side effect, but says nothing about what is created server-side, whether the file persists or can be deleted, size/format restrictions, or what happens when confirm_upload is false — all critical for an upload 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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the hard prerequisite; no filler. It is arguably too terse rather than padded, which is a different problem from verbosity.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value description is not required, and the two-parameter surface is small. Still, a mutating upload tool with zero annotations leaves the agent without side-effect, persistence, or constraint information that would matter before invoking it, so it is not fully 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for both parameters. It gives real meaning for confirm_upload (must be true, i.e., a deliberate opt-in guard) but adds almost nothing for file_path beyond 'local file', leaving path format, relative vs absolute, and constraints undocumented in both schema and prose.

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 (upload) and resource (a local file into OpenAI Files) plus the intended consumer (Responses input), which lets an agent separate this from create_response, create_chat_completion, and the model-inspection siblings. It stops short of 5 only because it does not explicitly name the follow-up tool or contrast with any other file-related path.

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 phrase 'for Responses input' implies the context in which this should be used, and 'Requires explicit confirm_upload=true' gives a gating prerequisite. There is no when-not guidance, no mention of size or format limits, and no statement of what to do if the upload is not needed (e.g., inline content), so the agent must infer the boundaries.

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