Загрузить файл сегмента (device id / MAC / хеши)

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false), the description reveals important behaviors: creation is non-idempotent (first step of two-phase), creates a segment with status 'uploaded' and an id, requires subsequent confirmation, and imposes quotas (10/min, 100/hour, 500/day). These details add substantial context beyond the structured annotations and are not contradicted by them.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and each sentence provides necessary information (create action, format/constraints, two-phase workflow, parameter source, quotas). There is no redundancy or filler; every word contributes to understanding the tool.

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 no output schema, the description adequately covers the response (segment with status 'uploaded' and its id), the mandatory follow-up (confirm_segment), and edge constraints (min records, max size, quotas). It also clarifies the parameter exclusivity rule, making the tool fully understandable for correct invocation despite its complexity.

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 already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for each parameter (content, file_name, file_path) and explicitly states the 'exactly one' exclusivity. The description adds value by reinforcing the source data choice ('ровно одно из двух') and contextualizing the parameters with file format constraints (TSV/TXT, UTF-8, record count, size limit). Since the schema is thorough, the description supplements rather than carries the burden, but it still exceeds the baseline.

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 tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Создаёт сегмент из TSV/TXT-файла с данными' (Creates a segment from a TSV/TXT file). It explicitly differentiates from the sibling tool upload_segment_csv_file by specifying TSV/TXT format, and outlines the two-phase process, making the tool's role unambiguous.

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 explains when to use this tool: as the first step of a two-phase process, followed by confirm_segment. It also specifies data source requirements (file_path or content, exactly one) and format constraints (UTF-8, min 100 records, max 1 GB), effectively guiding the agent on appropriate usage without needing to reference a separate tool for the same purpose.

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