Workflow: subir y pedir firma

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the basic steps without mentioning side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens in case of errors. For a multi-step workflow, this is insufficient.

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 sentence, which is concise but may be too brief for the complexity. There is no wasted text, but it sacrifices completeness for brevity.

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 high complexity (9 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, no annotations), the description is extremely incomplete. It does not explain return values, error handling, or the order of operations, leaving an AI agent with insufficient context to use the tool correctly.

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?

With only 11% schema description coverage, the description should add meaning for the 9 parameters. It does not; all parameter understanding falls to the schema, which lacks descriptions except for 'placement'. The description adds no value beyond the tool's high-level action.

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's action: uploads a PDF, creates an external link, and returns share links. The title 'Workflow: subir y pedir firma' reinforces this. Among siblings, this is a composite workflow, distinguishing it from single-step tools like kairo_upload_document or kairo_request_external_sign.

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 workflow versus alternatives, such as performing the steps individually. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions.

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