putObject

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 states the upload action but doesn't cover critical traits like required permissions, rate limits, error handling (e.g., if file doesn't exist), or what happens on success (e.g., returns a URL or confirmation). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 in Chinese ('上传本地文件到存储桶') that is front-loaded and wastes no words. It directly conveys the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 complexity (a mutation with 3 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., success status, object URL), error conditions, or behavioral nuances like overwrite policies. For a file upload tool, this leaves critical gaps for an AI agent.

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%, with clear descriptions for filePath, fileName, and targetDir in Chinese. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as format examples (e.g., path syntax) or interdependencies (e.g., fileName defaults to basename of filePath). Baseline 3 is appropriate as 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 resource (local file to storage bucket) in Chinese. It distinguishes from siblings like putBase64, putBuffer, putObjectSourceUrl, and putString by specifying 'local file' as the source, though it doesn't explicitly name these alternatives. The purpose is specific but could be more precise about sibling differentiation.

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 like putBase64, putBuffer, putObjectSourceUrl, or putString. It lacks context such as prerequisites (e.g., file must exist locally), performance considerations, or error conditions. Usage is implied by the action but not explicitly stated.

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