Create Project File Version

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

Annotations already indicate non-idempotency (idempotentHint: false) and non-read-only, but the description adds valuable details: 'calling it again creates another record' clarifies the non-idempotent behavior, and error handling is disclosed (401, 403, 404 status meanings). It also explains that fields are passed top-level despite being nested under 'file_version' in the payload, which is a useful behavioral nuance. No contradiction with annotations.

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 moderately long but well-structured: purpose, support link, payload mapping, idempotency, error handling, required params, and API reference. Each sentence adds value, though the support link and endpoint details could be considered slightly redundant. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to scan.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining return values. It explicitly states the tool returns the new record with its id (HTTP 201) and describes common error payloads. It also covers required parameters, body field nesting, and the API endpoint. Given the tool's moderate complexity, this is fully complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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% (all 6 parameters have descriptions), so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explicitly stating 'Required parameters: project_id, file_id' (already in schema, but reinforces priority) and by clarifying that fields are passed as top-level arguments even though they are nested under 'file_version' in the actual request payload. This helps the agent correctly construct the call.

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 uses a specific verb ('Upload') and resource ('new version of a specific file in the Project Documents tool'), immediately distinguishing this from sibling tools like create_project_file (new file) or show_project_file_version (read). It also clearly states the outcome: 'Creates the project file version and returns it with its new id (HTTP 201).'

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 context is clear: this tool uploads a new version of an existing file, and required parameters are explicitly listed. It does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g., 'use create_project_file for a new file'), but the 'specific file' phrasing implies an existing file and the tool's scope is unambiguous. A named alternative would push this to 5.

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