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

Annotations indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint: false, destructiveHint: false). The description adds context about bulk support and supported tipos, aligning with annotations. No contradictions.

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 concise, front-loaded with the main purpose, and uses clear numbering to present the three file provision methods. Every sentence adds value.

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 tool with 10 parameters and no output schema, the description covers key aspects (file provision, tipos, bulk) but lacks details on the output, error handling, and some parameters (account, salvar_cloud). It is adequate but has gaps.

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 compensates by explaining the three file provision methods (upload_code, file_url, file_base64) and the meaning of the 'tipo' parameter via a list. It also mentions bulk support with patient_ids. However, it does not describe all parameters (e.g., account, salvar_cloud) in detail.

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 it uploads a file to a patient's attachments, specifies supported file types (PDF, image, etc.), and lists three methods for providing the file. It distinguishes itself from other tools like webdiet_list_anexos by focusing on uploading.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use each file provision method (e.g., upload_code recommended for large files, file_base64 for small files only). However, it does not explicitly exclude alternative tools or state when not to use this tool.

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