upload_course_file

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the folder_path default and the local file origin, but does not address overwrite behavior, errors, permissions, or the outcome of a successful upload. This is a significant gap for a mutation 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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and then a concise clarification of folder_path. Every sentence adds value with no filler.

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 having an output schema, the description lacks essential context about failure modes, file name collisions, or prerequisites (e.g., course must exist). It covers the core action but leaves the agent guessing on operational behaviors that could affect correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for folder_path (destination folder, default root) and clarifies local_file_path via the phrase 'local file (from this machine)'. However, course_identifier is left to its name and context, providing incomplete coverage of all parameters.

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 clearly states the action (upload a local file) and the resource (course's Files), and distinguishes from sibling file operations like list_course_files and read_course_file by emphasizing the upload aspect and the local source of the file.

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 implies use for uploading local files but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which sibling to choose instead. It does clarify the folder_path parameter and default behavior, giving some contextual usage hints, but lacks explicit exclusions or alternative routing.

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