upload_document_from_path

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal a key behavior: 'Reads and encodes the file internally — no need to pass base64 strings.' However, it does not disclose other behavioral aspects such as required permissions, error conditions (e.g., missing file), or side effects. This is partial disclosure, but not comprehensive enough for a higher score.

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 exceptionally concise: three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose. The first gives the action, the second explains a key internal behavior, the third provides usage alternatives and a prerequisite. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff.

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?

The tool has 10 parameters (though only 1 required), no output schema, and no annotations. The description gives the core purpose, the alternative, and a prerequisite, which is helpful. However, it does not mention any return value or error scenarios. Given the complexity and lack of output schema, this is a moderate gap; the description is complete enough for basic usage but not fully.

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 schema already documents all 10 parameters with descriptions, so schema coverage is 100%, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds little extra parameter semantics beyond the schema; it mentions the internal encoding to explain why base64 isn't needed, but this is more behavioral than parameter-specific. Thus, no reason to raise above 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: 'Upload a PDF from a local file path to the Yuki archive.' It uses a specific verb + resource. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool upload_document by noting to 'Use this instead of upload_document when the file is available on disk.'

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 explicit usage guidance: it names the alternative tool (upload_document) and the condition for choosing this tool ('when the file is available on disk'). It also gives a prerequisite step ('Call get_document_folders first to find the correct folder ID'). This fully satisfies the when/alternatives criteria.

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