putObject

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the upload action but doesn't mention permissions needed, rate limits, whether the operation is idempotent, what happens on conflicts (e.g., overwriting existing files), or error conditions. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, directly stating the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

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 file upload tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information about return values (e.g., success confirmation, error details), behavioral traits like overwrite behavior or permissions, and differentiation from sibling tools. This leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to use it correctly.

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 three parameters well. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't clarify relationships between fileName, filePath, and targetDir). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 '上传本地文件到存储桶' clearly states the action (upload) and target (local file to storage bucket). It's specific about what the tool does, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'putObjectSourceUrl' which likely uploads from a URL instead of a local 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'putObjectSourceUrl' (for URL-based uploads) or 'getObject' (for downloads), nor does it specify prerequisites or contexts for use.

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