Upload audio

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

Annotations include destructiveHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, so the description doesn't need to cover safety. It does mention format and size constraints, which adds value. But it doesn't clarify behavior on upload failure or whether the file is deleted after upload.

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?

Two sentences with no redundancy. The key constraints (formats, size, return value) are front-loaded, and the note about not sending is a useful clarification in a single short clause.

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 simple upload tool with one parameter and strong schema coverage, the description is mostly complete. It explains the return value and the relationship to send_linkedin_voice_note. The only gap is error handling or side effects, but that is minor given the tool's simplicity.

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 file_path parameter is already described as 'Absolute path to a local audio file.' The description mentions formats and size (4 MB), which adds meaning beyond the schema, but it doesn't explain what happens if the format or size is invalid.

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?

States a specific action (upload), the resource (local audio file), lists accepted formats and size limit, and notes the return value (audio_url). The phrase 'does not send anything' clearly distinguishes it from sibling send_linkedin_voice_note.

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?

Clearly states the purpose and result, and implicitly differentiates from send_linkedin_voice_note by noting it does not send. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives, or any exclusion conditions beyond format/size.

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