rlm_upload_document

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states upload or update, but does not explain overwrite behavior, versioning, conflict resolution, or required permissions. The description is insufficient for an agent to understand side effects.

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 concise with three sentences. The first sentence states purpose and supported formats, the second adds encoding details. It is easy to read and front-loaded with key information. Could benefit from structured lists but is efficient.

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?

Despite having 6 parameters including a nested object for metadata, the description only covers content encoding and file format support. It does not explain the purpose of parameters like kind, format, language, or metadata, nor does it describe return values or update behavior. The description is incomplete for a tool of this 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with good parameter descriptions. The description adds value by clarifying that binary payloads use base64:<payload> except SVG which can use raw XML, and by grouping formats into text and binary categories. This goes beyond what the schema provides.

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 tool uploads or updates a document in the project, specifying supported file formats. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like rlm_upload_business_document or rlm_upload_shared_document, which may have overlapping purpose.

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 guidance on supported formats and encoding for binary files, but lacks explicit instructions on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies use for project documents but does not state when to choose rlm_upload_business_document or rlm_upload_shared_document.

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