upload_dossier

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'upload' without explaining authentication requirements, overwrite behavior, size limits, or what 'Google Flow' integration entails. This is insufficient for a mutation-capable tool.

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 one sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, and has no filler. It is appropriately concise for a simple upload, though it could be more informative without becoming bloated.

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?

With four parameters, a nested object, and no output schema, the description does not adequately explain how to use the parameters together or what happens after upload. The absence of return-value information and lack of usage context make the tool under-specified for an agent to invoke confidently.

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 input schema covers all parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a bit of context about dossier content (characters, lore, visual rules) but does not clarify the relationship between `content` and `dossier_path` or the optional `tool_id`. It adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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 an upload action with a specific resource type (character/worldbuilding dossier) and destination (Google Flow), reinforced by examples like ACOTAR characters. While it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, no sibling performs direct uploads, so the purpose is sufficiently unique.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_character or generate_from_dossier. The examples hint at intended content but do not state prerequisites, exclusions, or preference over other tools.

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