upload_asset

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

Annotations indicate it is not readOnly (so it writes) and not destructive. The description adds 'upload' but does not disclose overwrite behavior, file size limits, or effect on existing files. With limited annotation details, the description should provide more behavioral context.

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 a single sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the key action. However, it could be slightly more informative (e.g., mentioning it's for SiYuan asset system) without sacrificing brevity.

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 low complexity (2 required params, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is mostly adequate. However, it lacks context about the asset directory structure and whether the upload replaces or adds files. This might leave an AI agent uncertain about behavior.

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 100% and already describes the parameters (files as absolute paths, assetsDirPath as directory). The description adds no extra meaning beyond what's in the schema, so 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 clearly states the action ('upload') and the object ('local resource files'), mentioning 'one or more' adds specificity. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_file' and 'remove_file', but 'put_file' is a close sibling and could be differentiated.

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 the tool is used for uploading local resource files, but it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No alternatives are mentioned, such as when to use 'put_file' instead.

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