kb_create_direct_upload

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

With only a title annotation and no readOnly/destructive hints, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals return values ({signed_id, upload_url, content_type}), the requirement to PUT bytes to the URL, and allowed file types with a max size. It does not mention authentication or error behavior, but the core behavior is well-covered for a tool without annotation support.

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 efficiently structured: it front-loads the purpose, then lists return values, usage steps, and constraints in a compact, logical order. Every sentence provides necessary information without redundant fluff. It is slightly longer than minimal but earns each sentence.

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 tool with 5 parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description provides a strong overview of the workflow, return values, and limits. However, it leaves parameter semantics to be inferred and does not address potential errors or edge cases, which prevents a perfect score. Overall, it is fairly complete given the tool's complexity.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it does not explain individual parameters like byte_size, content_type, config, or project_id. It mentions 'filename' only implicitly by discussing file upload. The workflow hints at some meanings, but key parameters like byte_size and config remain obscure. This is a significant gap given the lack of schema descriptions.

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 purpose: 'Step 1 of a two-step file upload: get a presigned URL to upload a file into a KB.' It uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('presigned URL'), and distinguishes itself from the sibling tool kb_add_file, which is the second step. This makes the tool's role unambiguous.

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 explicitly explains when to use this tool and how to chain it with the alternative: 'then call kb_add_file with the signed_id.' It provides step-by-step instructions (PUT to upload_url, use content-type header) and specifies supported file types and size limit, giving clear context for when this tool is appropriate.

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