create_unit_document

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the input method ('Send contentBase64'), the upload destination ('Achi Properties/{unit}'), and the side effect of creating a trail row. It omits details on alternative driveFileId input and permission requirements, but adds meaningful behavioral context.

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 concise at three sentences, front-loads the purpose, and avoids excessive detail. It could be more structured to list key parameters, but it remains efficient and scannable.

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 13 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The description only provides high-level context and one parameter hint. It fails to explain critical aspects like the distinction between contentBase64 and driveFileId, date formats, category handling, or expected response. This is a significant gap for a complex 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 only 23%, and the description only explains contentBase64 explicitly. Most other parameters (title, periodFrom, documentDate, category, etc.) receive no additional meaning beyond their names. The description does not compensate for the low schema coverage, leaving agents guessing about required formats and relationships.

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 creates a 'Properties trail document' with concrete examples (NK letter, HV file), using the specific verb 'Create' and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like list/update/download unit documents by focusing on creation.

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?

Provides a clear usage directive: 'Use this instead of asking the user to re-attach,' signaling when this tool is preferred. It also describes the side effect of uploading into 'Achi Properties/{unit}' to create a trail row. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like upload_file or update_unit_document.

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