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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, but the description goes well beyond them by enumerating precisely what is overwritten (company details, fiscal year, P&L, balance sheet, notes, periodization funds) and by promising that the file is validated as SIE before anything changes. It also discloses the 5 MB ceiling and that loaded plus snapshot are returned, which is exactly the context a destructive mutation needs.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and its step context, then layered with replacement scope, input modes and preconditions in a logical order. The clause comparing it to a user selecting a file in the wizard is decorative but minor; the rest is dense with non-redundant information.

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 still names the return values (loaded and snapshot) and covers atomicity, size limits and step/AI-mode preconditions. It does not explain what the snapshot contains or how a validation failure is surfaced, leaving a small gap for a destructive tool.

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 the schema already documents draft_id, filename, upload_id and content_base64, including the ~30 kB recommendation and 5 MB limit. The description restates those same tradeoffs rather than adding syntax, encoding or default behavior beyond them, so 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Läser in en SIE-fil (SIE4) i steg 1') and immediately scopes it by naming exactly which draft data gets replaced. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling create_sie_upload, which only stages bytes, because this tool is the one that parses and applies the file.

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?

Gives concrete preconditions (draft must be open in AI mode and at step 1) and routes between the two input modes, recommending upload_id for larger files and content_base64 for exact-byte fidelity. It never states when to avoid the tool or what breaks if the step precondition is violated beyond the implicit requirement, so it stops short of a 5.

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