s3_upload_object

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and discloses key behaviors: local_path must resolve under home/cwd/Downloads, overwrites existing destination, and is reserved for dangerous guard mode. It lacks mentions of auth, errors, or return values, but the disclosed traits are significant.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: purpose, key constraint, and usage restriction. Front-loaded and no filler.

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 5-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately covers purpose, constraints, and risk factors. It does not explain return values or error conditions, but the core invocation details are sufficient.

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%, but the description adds extra value by specifying the local_path constraint and overwrite behavior for the key, going beyond the schema's simple property descriptions.

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 states 'Upload a local file to an S3 bucket' with a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like download, delete, copy, and list. The action is 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 usage through 'Reserved for dangerous guard mode' and the path constraint, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool. It provides some context but no direct comparison with sibling tools.

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