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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), so the description's real added value is the return behavior: 'RUECKGABE: file_udid (32-hex)' plus how that value feeds into formdef.template_file for PDF templates. That downstream context is genuinely useful and goes beyond structured fields, though the cryptic 'SSR' note is not clarified.

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 mixes German and English mid-sentence in pipe-delimited fragments, which is hard to parse, and it ends with a keyword tag '| EN: file, upload, document, attachment' that is pure noise for an agent. The useful facts are present but not front-loaded or cleanly structured.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by disclosing the return value (file_udid) and its intended downstream use. Combined with 100% parameter coverage and existing annotations for safety, an agent has nearly everything needed to call it correctly.

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 all five parameters are already documented in the schema (including the structuredimage/document distinction and the name example). The description largely restates the type/name meaning, adding little syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 opening sentence states a specific verb and resource ('Upload a file to an object'), which is distinct from siblings like onto_file_delete, upload_staging_csv, and upload_code_allowlist. It is clear but never explicitly names an alternative, so the agent must infer the routing from the name alone.

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?

It explains the type parameter choices (structuredimage vs document) and clarifies the 'name' semantics, and it notes 'SSR: landet im write_scope falls read-only'. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance relative to the many sibling file/object tools, so usage is only implied.

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