upload_tour

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the upload action but omits side effects (e.g., whether existing tours are overwritten), authentication needs, error handling, or file size limits.

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 short and front-loaded with the main purpose (French sentence). The parameter list is clearly formatted with bullet points, providing essential info without verbosity.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values are covered. However, the description lacks context about input validation (e.g., supported GPX versions), rate limits, or post-upload results. It adequately documents parameters but misses operational details for a mutation 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 0%, and the description adds meaning for each parameter: explains gpx_content as XML text, lists valid sport values, marks tour_name as optional, and defines data_type options (gpx/fit). This adds value beyond the minimal 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 clearly states the tool uploads a GPX file as a recorded activity on Komoot, specifying the main verb ('Uploader') and resource (GPX fichier). However, it does not differentiate from similar siblings like import_gpx_route, which could cause confusion.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., import_gpx_route or create_planned_tour). There are no exclusions or contextual hints about prerequisites or preferred scenarios.

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