Api chat questionnaire runs upload create

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond the word 'multipart': it doesn't say whether the upload attaches to an existing run, whether re-uploading replaces or duplicates the file (relevant given idempotentHint=false), or what happens on size/type violations.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is terse rather than padded; the shortfall is missing information, not wasted words.

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?

This is a write/upload tool with no output schema and a schema that exposes no parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It doesn't explain the target resource, required prior state, or return value, and its implicit parameter list conflicts with the empty schema.

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 description names file, folder and title, but the input schema declares zero properties with additionalProperties=false — so the fields it describes are not accepted by the declared schema. This actively misleads an agent trying to construct the call rather than clarifying the 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?

"Multipart upload entry point" names an action (upload) and the transfer encoding (multipart), and the field list hints at the payload. But it never names the resource — questionnaire runs — and the title only repeats the API path, so an agent cannot distinguish it from the many sibling upload tools (chat_sessions_upload_create, evidences_upload_create, stored_libraries_upload_create) without reading the name.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus the sibling upload endpoints, no prerequisite that a questionnaire run must already exist, and no indication of what 'folder' selects. The agent is left to infer context entirely from the tool name.

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