uploadSandboxFileUpload a file directly to the sandbox. Maximum file size is 10MB. For larger files, use POST /v2/sandboxes/:sandbox_id/upload-urls.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sandbox_id | Yes | The sandbox's unique identifier |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are neutral (all false), so the description carries the disclosure burden. It adds the 10MB size limit and a reference to the upload-urls alternative, which is useful. However, it does not explain what happens on failure, whether the file overwrites existing content, or any other behavioral aspects.
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 short sentences, each carrying important information: the action, the size limit, and the alternative. No wasted words and the key detail is front-loaded.
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 having only one parameter, the missing file-content parameter makes the description incomplete for actual usage. The description provides the size limit and alternative, but without explaining how to pass the file, the tool cannot be correctly invoked.
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?
The input schema only includes `sandbox_id`, with no parameter for the file content itself. The description claims a file is uploaded but provides no guidance on how to provide the file. This is a critical omission, making the tool practically non-invocable based on the given information.
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 action ('Upload a file directly to the sandbox') with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from the alternative upload-urls flow by mentioning the endpoint for larger files.
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 explicitly provides an alternative for when not to use this tool: 'For larger files, use POST /v2/sandboxes/:sandbox_id/upload-urls.' This gives an unambiguous usage condition based on file size.
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.
Despite detailed descriptions, many tool names are highly ambiguous, with multiple tools covering the same conceptual actions (e.g., acceptClarityCaptureSuggestion vs. acceptClarityTeamAssignmentSuggestion, or the many deleteClarity*Interview tools). The set is so large that distinguishing between, say, listClarityFolders, listClarityProcesses, and listClarityProcessSummaries requires reading deep into descriptions, reducing agent selection accuracy.
The naming convention is predominantly verb_noun (e.g., createClarityProcess, listAgents, deleteQueue), and is remarkably consistent across the 316 tools. There are only minor deviations, such as 'fileSuggestedClarityProcesses' (verb + adjective noun) and 'bulkUpdateCasePriority' (where 'bulk' could be seen as a prefix), but overall the pattern holds strongly.
With 316 tools, this server is extremely oversized for any single agent to manage effectively. The massive number of tools suggests poor modularization—many of these tools likely belong in separate, smaller servers focused on specific domains (e.g., Clarity, Pulse, Agent management). The cognitive load for an agent to choose from 316 options is very high, leading to frequent misselection.
The tool surface covers an extraordinarily wide range of operations across the Duvo platform: agents, runs, cases, queues, Clarity processes, skills, integrations, notifications, teams, and more. Most resource types have full CRUD and lifecycle management. Notable minor gaps exist (e.g., no tools for managing specific notification batch severities dynamically, and some interview management is missing batch operations), but for the platform's scope, coverage is impressively thorough.