Upload a document file

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds little context. It does not explain side effects (e.g., whether existing files are overwritten), required permissions, or what the tool returns after upload. This is a significant gap for a write operation with no output 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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the action and includes relevant file format details. Every word contributes meaning, with no fluff or repetition of the schema.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description is thin. It does not explain what happens after a successful upload, whether the file is associated with the client's documentation, how the response is returned, or any constraints (e.g., file size). Given the complexity and the presence of related sibling tools, this description is inadequate for an agent to fully anticipate the tool's effects.

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 67%, with descriptions for file_name and file_path but none for uuid. The tool description mentions 'to a client', which hints that uuid is a client identifier, but this is not explicit. The description adds some context beyond the schema but does not fully compensate for the missing uuid parameter description.

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'), the resource ('document file'), accepted formats, and target ('to a client'). It is specific and goes beyond the title, but does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'add_documentation', which could be confused for a similar action.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what the tool does, with no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or when to prefer a different tool (e.g., 'add_documentation' for metadata-only cases).

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