canvas_upload

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose that this is a write operation, that it requires a Canvas API token, and that the default is a non-destructive dry-run. It leaves out size and type limits, overwrite behavior, and what a successful pre-check or upload returns.

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?

It is a single compact sentence with the write/token caveat and the dry-run rule front-loaded, and every clause carries information an agent needs before calling it.

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 two-parameter upload tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: mutation semantics, authorization requirement, and the dry-run default. It would be stronger if it mentioned size/type limits or overwrite behavior, but nothing required for a correct call is missing.

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 the schema itself documents both file_path and confirm, including the pre-check semantics of confirm. The description reinforces the confirm behavior but adds no format or constraint detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb and resource (upload a local file to the Canvas personal files cloud drive) and marks it as a write operation, so it is clearly separable from read-oriented siblings such as canvas_files or share_files. It stops short of naming a sibling or stating an explicit boundary against them, so it is clear but not fully 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?

It gives the crucial operating rule: by default the call only pre-checks size and type, and actual upload happens only with confirm=true. That is clear guidance for how to invoke it safely. It does not say when to prefer this over related file tools, so there is no explicit alternative routing.

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