Api evidences batch upload create

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the write/non-idempotent/open-world profile is known. The description adds only that the body is multipart, and says nothing about duplicate handling on re-upload, partial-failure semantics, or permissions — the behaviors that actually matter for a non-idempotent write.

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, and the resource and payload form come first. It is efficient, though its brevity edges into under-specification rather than optimal density.

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?

A mutating, non-idempotent upload tool with an empty schema, no output schema, and no annotations covering payload shape. Given that complexity, the description omits the payload contract, the response, and the relationship to the created evidence records — the gaps an agent must close before calling it successfully.

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 declares zero properties with additionalProperties=false, which contradicts the need for a multipart body; the description is the only source naming 'multipart', and that is genuinely additive. However, it never enumerates the required multipart parts (file, name, related object ids), so the agent still cannot construct a valid request.

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?

Specific verb plus resource ('Bulk-upload evidences') and the transport form ('multipart payload'), so an agent knows this creates multiple evidence records in one call. It does not distinguish itself explicitly from near-identical siblings such as ciso_assistant_api_evidences_upload_create or evidences_batch_action_create, leaving the 'bulk vs single vs batch-action' boundary to inference.

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?

No statement of when to choose this over the single-upload or batch-action variants, no prerequisites (authentication, target evidence/requirement ids, size limits), and no exclusions. The word 'bulk' implies usage but gives the agent nothing actionable for routing.

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