tokonomix_upload

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility. It discloses key behaviors: ephemeral storage (auto-purged), region-pinned (EU default), SSRF safety (never fetches caller URL), and feature-gating (returns 'not enabled' instead of error). This is exceptional transparency beyond basic parameter descriptions.

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 dense but every sentence adds value: purpose, workflow, ephemeral/security properties, feature-gate, and alternative usage. It is structured with a clear logical flow and no filler.

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?

This tool has a simple schema but significant behavioral complexity. The description covers return value semantics, the expected follow-up call, security constraints, and error handling. Since there is no output schema, the description adequately fills that gap.

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 coverage is 100%, with per-field descriptions. The description adds context about how files are processed (verbatim vs digested, server-bounded budget) and how the result is used, which goes beyond the schema. It does not restate parameter names, but its extra semantic layer about staging behavior earns a 4.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: "Stage large context (over the inline cap) for a grounded consensus call." It clearly differentiates from siblings by referencing tokonomix_consensus_ask and inline context, and it states the return type (session + handles). This is a model of purpose clarity.

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 provides usage guidance: use this tool for large context (over the inline cap) and use inline context.inline for small payloads. It also explains the workflow (pass the returned session to tokonomix_consensus_ask) and the feature gate behavior, which helps the agent decide when to invoke this tool.

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