billy_upload_file

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses write operation, confirmation mechanism, format restrictions, and auto-detection of MIME. However, it omits details like file size limits, idempotency, behavior on duplicate filenames, and error handling, leaving some gaps.

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?

Description is compact (approx. 70 words) with clear structure: action, confirmation requirement, format constraints, next steps, and auto-detection. Every sentence adds essential information without 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 absence of output schema, the description adequately covers the primary function, parameters, and expected return (metadata with id). Missing details on error cases and size limits are minor; overall it provides sufficient context for correct tool usage.

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 coverage is 100% with good parameter descriptions. The description adds value by explaining the confirm parameter's two-step workflow and the purpose of the returned id, but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema for other parameters.

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?

Clearly states upload action, resource (file to Billy), and scope (receipt/invoice PDF/image). Distinguishes from sibling attach tools by explicitly stating the next step to attach the file using billy_attach_file_to_bill or billy_attach_file_to_invoice.

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?

Explicitly mentions write operation with two-step confirmation (dry-run then confirm), required file formats, and conversion advice. Provides clear post-upload guidance. Lacks explicit exclusions (e.g., when file already exists), but context implies appropriate usage.

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