upload_file

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

Annotations already declare mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and destructiveness (destructiveHint=true). The description adds valuable behavior beyond those: it handles binary files that must not be UTF-8 decoded, and it commits and pushes immediately. This gives the agent important operational knowledge not captured in annotations. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three sentences with no filler. The purpose and binary warning are front-loaded, followed by the commit/push side effect. Every sentence earns its place, and the core message is immediately clear.

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 an upload tool with a full schema, the description covers the essential behavior (binary handling, immediate commit/push). It could mention return values or success indicators, but given no output schema, that is not strictly required. The description is sufficient for an agent to call this tool correctly in the intended context.

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 provides full descriptions for all five parameters (100% coverage), so the description does not need to elaborate further. The description's mention of binary handling is relevant to the overall behavior but does not specifically clarify any parameter beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Upload') and resource ('local file into a Typleaf project'), and explicitly scopes it to binary/non-text assets (images, PDFs). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like create_file or edit_file, which likely handle text. The phrase 'must not be UTF-8 decoded' further clarifies the tool's niche.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('Use this for images (PNG/JPG), PDFs, and other non-text assets'), which gives clear context. It does not explicitly say 'use create_file for text', but the binary emphasis implies the exclusion. The 'Commits and pushes immediately' note adds behavioral context that helps anticipate side effects. A bit more explicit guidance on when *not* to use it (e.g., for text files) would merit a 5.

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