upload_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully adds that content must be base64-encoded and that files are immediately available via CDN. However, it does not mention overwrite behavior, permissions, or size limits, which are relevant for a write operation.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: the first states the purpose, the second provides a critical constraint, and the third gives a concrete example. There is no fluff or repetition, and it is front-loaded with the main verb and resource.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (4 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential context: what it does, the base64 requirement, and CDN availability. It does not describe return values or error conditions, but these are less critical for a simple upload, and the schema already covers parameter details.

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 input schema provides thorough descriptions for all four parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the base64 requirement for 'content' and gives an example, but it does not add significant new meaning beyond the 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 clearly states the verb and resource: 'Upload a file to a website's storage.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_file, list_files, and create_folder, and the concrete example ('Upload index.html to my website') reinforces the purpose.

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 context is clear: use this tool to upload file content to a website. While it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, the sibling toolset (e.g., delete_file, create_folder) makes the distinction obvious, and the example provides practical usage guidance.

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