foundry_upload_file

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

The description adds little beyond the annotation readOnlyHint: false, which already signals a write operation. It does not disclose side effects such as overwrite behavior, permission requirements, or whether the operation is idempotent. For a write tool, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, focused sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. It contains no redundant words or filler, making it highly efficient.

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?

The tool has 8 parameters, some lacking descriptions, and no output schema. The description only states the core action, making it insufficient for an agent to fully understand success/failure behavior, return values, or edge cases like overwrite. For a tool with this complexity, the description is notably incomplete.

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 63%, and the description adds no new information about parameters. It repeats the base64/data URL detail found in the fileData schema description, but fails to explain filename, mimeType, overwrite, or path. The description does not compensate for the missing parameter documentation, offering minimal added value.

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's function: uploading a base64-encoded file or data URL to a Foundry file source. It uses a specific verb (Upload) and resource (file source), and distinguishes from sibling tools like foundry_download_file and foundry_list_files, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 implies when to use the tool (whenever you need to upload a file to Foundry), but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives like creating a folder or using data URLs vs. base64. There is no mention of alternatives or exclusion criteria, so it falls short of clear usage guidance.

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