upload_document

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key requirements (base64-encoded string) and a dependency (folder ID from get_document_folders), but does not describe response behavior, error conditions, or mutation characteristics beyond the act of uploading. This is useful but incomplete for a mutation tool.

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 four sentences with no filler. It front-loads the purpose, then adds usage context, a requirement, and a prerequisite. Each sentence contributes value.

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 10 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core usage, requirement, and prerequisite. It could mention the response or success/failure behavior, but given the rich schema, the description is adequate for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all 10 parameters. The description adds minimal extra meaning, referencing base64 encoding and folder retrieval, both already present in the schema. It does not introduce new parameter-specific details, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Upload') and resource ('Yuki archive'), and distinguishes it by mentioning base64 encoding, which differentiates it from the sibling upload_document_from_path. The use case ('attach source documents to purchase invoices or store receipts') adds clarity.

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 provides context on when to use it ('Use this to attach source documents to purchase invoices or store receipts') and a clear prerequisite ('Call get_document_folders first to find the correct folder ID'). It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives like upload_document_from_path, so it lacks exclusions.

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