rlm_upload_business_document

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It states 'Upload or update' but does not clarify whether updates are idempotent, merge, or replace, nor does it mention required permissions, side effects, or error conditions. This leaves significant gaps in behavioral transparency.

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 consists of two concise sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence defines purpose; the second provides alternative guidance. Every word is efficient and necessary.

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?

Given the tool has 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description offers minimal contextual guidance. It correctly identifies the sibling alternative but fails to explain parameter relationships (e.g., mutual exclusivity of collection_id, preset, collection_slug) or the return behavior. This is adequate but not fully complete for the 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the description does not need to repeat param details. It adds no additional semantic context beyond the schema, which is adequate but not exceptional. Baseline score of 3 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 clearly states the action ('Upload or update') and the resource ('reusable document in a Team Business Context collection'). It explicitly differentiates from the sibling tool rlm_upload_document by specifying its use case for current client/project files, providing strong 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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool (for reusable business documents) and when not to, directing the agent to rlm_upload_document for client/project files. This clear alternative and context establish strong usage guidelines.

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