Upload Schedule File

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

Annotations indicate the tool is not read-only and not destructive. The description adds value by listing supported file formats (MPP, MPX, XER) and specifying that it returns the modified object. This provides behavioral context beyond the annotations, though it doesn't disclose file size limits or multiformat handling details already in schema.

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 somewhat long with deprecation notice, table, and endpoint info. It is front-loaded with key deprecation info, but the mixed messages and verbose formatting reduce conciseness. Could be more succinct.

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?

The description covers required parameters, supported file formats, return value (modified object), and endpoint path. However, the conflicting statements about deprecation and usage reduce completeness. No output schema, so returning the modified object is helpful.

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 descriptions for both parameters (project_id, file). The description merely repeats 'Required parameters: project_id, file' and does not add new meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score is appropriate.

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 mixes 'upload' and 'update' actions, and the deprecation notice suggests it's a duplicate of a PUT endpoint, creating confusion about the tool's core purpose. The title says 'Upload Schedule File' but the description says 'Use this to update existing Schedule (Legacy) records', which is inconsistent.

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 deprecation warning instructs to use the PUT method instead, providing an alternative. However, the description also says 'Use this to update...', contradicting the deprecation advice. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance beyond the deprecation.

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