legal_cert_upload

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description is not obligated to restate that. It does add scoping and routing context (JWT, tenant, company scope, dispatcher), which is useful beyond the annotations, but it does not disclose what side effects cert_upload causes or what gets uploaded or overwritten.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a compact Args section. There is no filler, though the Args section could have been more informative without hurting structure.

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?

For a destructive, non-idempotent action, the description lacks enough domain-specific context: it never says what a certificate upload entails, what valid inputs look like, or what effects to expect. The output schema may cover returns, but the input contract and behavioral context are too thin for an agent to invoke this tool 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by labeling message as 'Free-text objective' and inputs as 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs', which adds a basic level of meaning beyond the raw parameter names. However, the explanations are generic and do not describe cert_upload-specific input keys, format, or semantics.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Run the legal domain agent action `cert_upload`', which identifies the exact action even though it does not explain what cert_upload semantically does. It is not a tautology, but it also does not differentiate the action from other legal domain agent actions by describing its intended effect.

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?

It mentions routing 'through the platform's domain-agent dispatcher under your JWT, tenant, and company scope', which gives execution context, but it gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over sibling tools such as legal_vendor_onboard, legal_contract_review, or dispatch_domain_agent. No when/when-not conditions or alternatives are provided.

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