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

Beyond the annotations (which only say non-read-only, non-destructive, open-world), the description discloses the actual lifecycle of the upload ('waits there to be booked, reaches no one, can be deleted'), removes the need for a confirmation prompt, and names the required Cotlet API key scope. That is rich behavioral context annotations do not carry.

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?

It is front-loaded with the purpose, then layers the file-format scope, the description default, the lifecycle/confirmation rationale, and the auth requirement. Every sentence contributes, though the middle clauses are densely packed rather than crisply separated.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and safety already covered by annotations, the definition still explains where the file goes, that it is reversible, and what credentials are needed. Return/ID information is absent but not strictly required for an upload whose result is a pending document, leaving a minor gap.

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%, and the one parameter detail in the description ('Without a description Bokio uses the file name') merely restates the schema's stated default for `description` and its file-format enum for `file_url`. No syntax or format meaning is added beyond the schema, which sets the baseline at 3.

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 gives a specific verb+resource (add/upload a receipt or invoice document) and pins the destination ('the Uppladdat page'), which distinguishes it from read siblings like bokio_list_uploads. An agent can identify what it does and where the artifact lands without opening the schema.

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 gives clear conditional guidance ('runs without asking first') grounded in the fact that the file waits unbooked, reaches no one, and is deletable in Bokio. It stops short of naming an alternative sibling or stating when NOT to use it, so it is strong context but not full when/when-not guidance.

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