applications.create_document_uploadCreate a 15-minute, exact-size and exact-content-type signed upload form for one email-verified application at its exact current version.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fileName | Yes | ||
| mimeType | Yes | ||
| sizeBytes | Yes | ||
| contextKey | Yes | ||
| sessionToken | Yes | ||
| idempotencyKey | Yes | ||
| expectedVersion | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes | ||
| status | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the annotations: 15-minute expiry, exact size and content type enforcement, email verification, and version constraint. This complements the annotations (idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true) without contradiction.
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, well-structured sentence that front-loads key information. Every phrase adds value, no redundancy.
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?
Despite the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description lacks information about what the tool returns (the signed form) and the purpose of parameters like sessionToken and idempotencyKey. For a creation tool with 7 required parameters, this is insufficient for an agent to use correctly without additional context.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description only hints at parameters (exact-size → sizeBytes, exact-content-type → mimeType, exact version → expectedVersion) but does not explain all 7 parameters, especially sessionToken, idempotencyKey, and contextKey. The hints are insufficient for complete understanding.
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 verb 'Create' and the resource 'signed upload form' for an application. It specifies constraints like 15-minute expiry, exact size and content type, email-verified application, and exact version, distinguishing it from sibling tools like upload_document and complete_document_upload.
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 this tool is a prerequisite for uploading documents, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., upload_document, complete_document_upload). No when-not or alternative guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool is clearly scoped to a distinct action within its domain (applications, viewings, rentals, etc.). Verbs like start, update, submit, create, propose, accept are unambiguous and non-overlapping.
All tools follow a consistent domain_verb pattern in snake_case (e.g., applications.start, rentals.search, viewings.propose_availability). No mixing of styles.
21 tools cover a broad rental lifecycle (discovery, applications, quotes, viewings, payments, contracts). While slightly above the typical 15-tool sweet spot, each tool has a defined purpose and no redundancy.
The lifecycle from rental search to booking confirmation and contract signing is well-covered. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no explicit cancellation or withdrawal tools), but the core flows are complete.