steam_uploadWorkshopItem

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

With no annotations, description discloses that the tool does not perform uploads but returns code, which is critical behavioral context. It also specifies output format (C++, C#, GDScript). No mention of rate limits or auth, but this is acceptable for a documentation tool.

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 sentences, each adding unique value: purpose, technical requirement, output specifics. No wasted words, front-loaded with core information.

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?

No output schema needed; description covers return format and language support. Lacks information on error handling or code snippet size, but sufficient for expected use as a documentation tool.

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%, so baseline is 3. Description adds no additional meaning to parameters beyond what the schema provides (e.g., appid, title, etc.).

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?

Description states it returns code examples and documentation for uploading, clarifying the tool's actual function despite the name 'uploadWorkshopItem' suggesting an upload action. It distinguishes from siblings like steam_updateWorkshopItem by specifying it is not an HTTP endpoint.

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?

Description explains when to use (need code examples for uploading) and mentions prerequisites (Steamworks SDK), but does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives like steam_updateWorkshopItem for actual uploads.

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