Inicia o upload de um arquivo (até 200 MB) e devolve uma URL presigned (upload_url) pra fazer o PUT direto no storage, mais o file_id. Depois do PUT, chame crm_confirm_upload. Opcional: anexe a um registro com object+record_id.
Bulk support: accepts record_ids for batched execution.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| size | Yes | ||
| object | No | ||
| account | No | ||
| filename | Yes | ||
| record_id | No | ||
| record_ids | No | ||
| content_type | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses the two-stage upload behavior, 200 MB size limit, and bulk support, which go beyond the annotations. Annotations already convey non-read-only and non-destructive intent, and the description does not contradict them. It could add failure semantics or auth requirements, but the core behavior is well covered.
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 compact and front-loaded with the primary purpose, then provides workflow and optionality. Every sentence earns its place; no filler or 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?
Given no output schema, the description still covers the main return values (upload_url, file_id) and the mandatory follow-up. It omits details like parameter interaction rules and possible conflicts between record_id and record_ids, but is fairly complete for the core upload flow.
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 has 7 parameters with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It clarifies object/record_id/record_ids and implies filename/size, but leaves content_type and account unexplained and does not specify the units for size. This is a significant gap for parameter usage.
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 clearly states it starts a file upload, returns a presigned URL and file_id, and requires a follow-up PUT then crm_confirm_upload. The verb+resource is specific and distinguishes this tool from siblings like crm_confirm_upload and crm_upload_from_url.
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 an explicit workflow: PUT to the presigned URL, then call crm_confirm_upload. It also explains optional record attachment and bulk usage via record_ids. It does not explicitly contrast with crm_upload_from_url, but the intended usage context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.