Upload File (Fallback)

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

Annotations cover the mutation profile (readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false), and the description goes well beyond them: it discloses the return shape ({path, filename, mimeType, size}), instructs how to consume it (path as the File/Image value in submit_activity), and states two hard constraints — 50MB max and a blocked-extension list. This is exactly the kind of operational context annotations cannot carry.

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?

A single dense paragraph with the fallback constraint front-loaded in caps, followed by mechanism, return shape, and limits. Every clause carries actionable information; nothing is redundant padding.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description documents the return object and its downstream use, and covers size/extension limits and the routing alternative. For a 5-parameter mutation tool, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret the result.

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 100%, so all five parameters are already documented in the schema, making 3 the baseline. The description only restates the base64 encoding already noted in the schema and does not clarify module scoping, workspaceId requirements, or mimeType defaults beyond what the schema says.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (uploads a file via base64) and immediately frames its role as a fallback, distinguishing it from the request_upload_url/confirm_upload sibling flow. An agent can identify both what it does and where it sits in the upload pipeline without opening the schema.

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 names the preferred alternative (request_upload_url + confirm_upload) and the precise condition that selects this tool: 'call this only after that presigned flow has actually failed.' This is a textbook when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement with the alternative named.

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