anythingllm_upload_raw_text

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

Annotations provide no safety hints (all hints false), and the description only restates the action without disclosing potential side effects, authentication requirements, or behavior on duplicate titles. For a write operation with no annotation support, the description offers minimal over the name itself.

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 brief and front-loaded, with no extraneous wording. The Args section duplicates schema names but is justified by adding semantic value. It is concise and well-structured.

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 tool is simple and has an output schema, but the description lacks behavioral context such as how duplicates are handled, size limits, or authentication needs. Given the absence of annotation support, more detail would improve completeness.

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 schema has zero description coverage, but the description compensates by defining both parameters: 'text_content' as 'Raw text content to upload' and 'title' as 'Document title'. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema types.

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 raw text content as a document to AnythingLLM') with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like upload_link, upload_file, and upload_file_to_folder by specifying 'raw text' input.

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 implies usage through its name and phrasing but offers no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like upload_link or upload_file. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tool references are provided.

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