Upload one local input file

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, idempotent=false and openWorld=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful mechanics beyond that: a pinned SDK upload-initiation step followed by a credential-free HTTPS PUT with redirects refused, and explicitly no multipart retries or automatic generation, which contextualizes the non-idempotent, non-retrying behavior.

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 tight sentences with no filler, and the input constraints are front-loaded. It is telegraphic and jargon-dense, but nothing is wasted and the structure is functional.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-value burden and it says nothing about what an upload produces or how it relates to upload_asset. For a destructive, non-idempotent mutation with nested lifecycle parameters, the description is serviceable but leaves meaningful gaps.

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 description coverage is 100%, so every parameter is already documented in the schema, including the file size/symlink constraints and lifecycle semantics. The description largely restates the file constraints and adds no meaning for confirm, account, or content_type. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 conveys that a local file is uploaded through a specific protocol, but it opens with a noun phrase of constraints rather than a clean verb+resource statement. It never distinguishes itself from the sibling upload_asset, leaving the agent to guess which upload tool applies. Purpose is inferable but not crisply stated.

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 closing sentence lists exclusions ('no remote URL ingestion, base64 model output, multipart retries or automatic generation'), which implicitly tells the agent when this tool is not appropriate. However, it names no alternative tool and gives no positive when-to-use condition beyond the input constraints.

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