upload_bom

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It effectively communicates that it reads a file from the local filesystem, uploads it to the API for asynchronous processing, and returns a job_id for polling. It lists supported formats, but does not mention potential side effects, authentication, or error conditions.

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 with four sentences, each serving a purpose: stating the action, explaining the process, referencing the follow-up tool, and listing formats. It is front-loaded and free of redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers key aspects: what it does, how to invoke it, and what to do next. It lacks details on error handling or file size limits, but is satisfactory for a straightforward upload tool.

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 has one parameter with a description. The tool description adds value by clarifying that 'Reads the file from the local filesystem' and enumerating supported formats, enhancing understanding beyond the schema alone.

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 the tool's primary action: 'Upload a BOM file for processing and part matching.' It specifies the resource (BOM file) and purpose (processing and part matching), and distinguishes itself from siblings like check_bom_status by explicitly referencing it for tracking progress.

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?

The description provides clear usage context by directing the user to 'Use check_bom_status with the returned job_id to track progress.' This implies a sequential workflow. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative BOM-related tools like extract_bom_from_kicad, leaving some ambiguity about when to use this tool versus others.

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