Upload Schedule File

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

The description usefully discloses return behavior ('Returns the modified schedule file') and common failure statuses (401, 403, 404), which goes beyond the annotations. However, the phrase 'modified schedule file' is inconsistent with an upload action, and the description does not mention how existing data is handled or whether the operation is truly idempotent (though the annotation hints it is). It provides some context but is muddled by the extraneous partial-update text.

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 disorganized and not front-loaded. It starts with a table, then jumps to a copied block about partial field updates, and finishes with API/endpoint info. The unrelated 'Send only the fields you intend to change' section adds noise and length without earning its place. The most critical information—what the tool does and required parameters—is buried.

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 file upload with two parameters and no output schema, the description includes useful elements (format table, error statuses, endpoint) but omits key context: how the file should be transmitted (multipart/form-data is only in the schema), whether this replaces or creates a schedule, and how it differs from sibling tools. The conflicting 'modified schedule file' language leaves the agent uncertain about core semantics, making the overall description incomplete.

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?

Both parameters (project_id, file) have schema descriptions, giving a 100% coverage baseline. The description adds the list of supported file formats, which is relevant to the 'file' parameter, but it does not explicitly connect the table to that parameter. The block about passing record fields nested under 'schedule_integration' does not correspond to the actual parameters and is misleading.

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 opening 'Upload a schedule file' is clear and specific, and the supported formats table adds a resource-specific detail. However, the description then includes contradictory text about 'Send only the fields you intend to change' and 'Returns the modified schedule file,' which implies an update/patch semantics rather than an upload, muddling the actual purpose. It also does not differentiate this v1_0 tool from its v1_0_2 sibling.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like download_schedule_file or the v1_0_2 version. The file format table serves as a constraint on acceptable inputs, but it does not state the context or exclusions. No competing tool is referenced, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name.

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