putBuffer

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. The description only states the upload action without mentioning any behavioral aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, whether this overwrites existing files, or what happens after upload. For a write operation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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, efficient Chinese phrase ('上传buffer内容到存储桶') that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the essential information.

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 a write operation tool with 5 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address important contextual aspects like what happens after upload (success/failure responses), whether this is idempotent, what permissions are required, or how it differs from similar sibling tools. The description alone doesn't provide enough information for confident tool selection and 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 100%, so the schema already documents all 5 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 '上传buffer内容到存储桶' clearly states the action (upload) and target (storage bucket) in Chinese, making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like putBase64, putObject, putObjectSourceUrl, or putString, which all seem to upload content to storage buckets using different input formats.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling upload tools (putBase64, putObject, putObjectSourceUrl, putString), the description offers no indication of what makes this tool distinct or when it should be preferred over those other options.

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