Upload Action Set

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

The description mentions 'Returns the created action set (status is usually 'building' — processing is async)', disclosing that processing is asynchronous. This adds context beyond annotations (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false). No contradiction with annotations.

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 only three sentences, front-loading the purpose, then covering parameters and return behavior. Every sentence is necessary and concise, with no 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 the tool's complexity (upload with format selection, async processing), the description provides all needed context: prerequisite, parameter meanings, async behavior. An output schema exists, so return details are covered. It is complete for agent use.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description explains that csv_content is the CSV text, source selects format (listing examples), and filename becomes display name. It does not explain request_id, but the three key parameters are well-described, adding value beyond the schema.

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 starts with 'Upload a CSV-based vulnerability remediation action set', which clearly states the action (upload), resource (action set), and input format (CSV). The sibling tools include get_action_set_detail, delete_action_set, etc., making this tool distinct as the creation/upload tool.

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 advises to 'Call get_upload_formats first to see the required columns per source', providing a clear prerequisite. It explains the purpose of each parameter (csv_content, source, filename). Though it does not explicitly state when not to use, the guidance is sufficient for an AI agent to use it correctly.

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