上传文件

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

The annotations already signal readOnly=false and destructive=false, and the description adds non-obvious behaviors: default 24-hour retention with auto-deletion, base64 for binary content, server-side URL fetching, and source mutual exclusivity. No contradiction with annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by a practical bulleted list. Every sentence earns its place by conveying non-obvious constraints or defaults.

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 10-parameter upload tool with no output schema, the description covers core behavior, source alternatives, and retention policy. It could mention response format or size limits, but the provided guidance is sufficient for selecting and invoking the tool 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds critical semantics beyond the schema: mutual exclusivity among source parameters, binary vs. text handling, and the default/range of ttlHours. Other params like tags and uploadedBy rely on 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 tool uploads a file and returns an identification code and download link, with a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from sibling tools like download_file, delete_file, and list_files.

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?

It explicitly explains that only one of content/text/path/url may be used and describes the appropriate scenario for each. It also gives the default retention and how to override via ttlHours, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling upload link creation.

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