b24_disk_file_upload

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits like overwrite behavior, size limits, or required authentication. It only states 'uploads a file' and omits critical details such as the need for a valid webhook_url parameter, leaving the agent unaware of side effects or constraints.

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 concise sentence that efficiently conveys the core action without any superfluous words. The key verb is front-loaded, making it immediately clear.

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 lack of output schema and the presence of a critical parameter (webhook_url) with no explanation, the description is incomplete. It fails to cover return values, error states, authentication requirements, or file size limits, leaving the agent with significant gaps for effective use.

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 description coverage is 75%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides. For the undocumented webhook_url parameter, no clarification is offered, but baseline is adequate.

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 verb 'sube' (upload) and the resource 'archivo' (file) to a 'carpeta' (folder), directly differentiating from sibling tools like b24_disk_file_get (get file) and b24_disk_folder_list (list folders). It is specific and unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites (e.g., folder existence, authentication via webhook_url) or exclusions. The description only states the action without context for decision-making.

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